wry mumull”Iliummmml:smmlmlum
' ngywlf 1 31293000731301
Michigséitate -.
if“ .Ugiv flaky

  

 

 

This is to certify that the

dissertation entitled

FAMILY INTERACTION AND HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
IN THE HOUSEWORK CONTEXT

presented by

KATHLEEN SLAUGH

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph.D. FAMILY ECOLOGY

degree in

Mia/wad

Major professor

 

 

Date November 10, 1982

MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771

 

MSU

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to

 

 

LIBRARJES remove this checkout from
5323. your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.
KAY o
:hfigfl' 91.2.1
;, 4 ‘5 tr:

 

 

 

FAMILY INTERACTION AND HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
IN THE HOUSEWORK CONTEXT

by
Kathleen Slaugh

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Family and Child Ecology
1982

ABSTRACT

FAMILY INTERACTION AND HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
IN THE HOUSEWORK CONTEXT

By

Kathleen Slaugh

Using a family ecological approach, family interaction in the
housework context was examined in this research. Ethnographic
methodology was utilized in order to develop grounded theory regarding
the relationship between participation in housework processes and the
development of human resources.

Historically housework has been neglected as a subject of serious
study. Research and study related to housework have increased in
recent years, yet the research has relied almost exclusively on
existing theoretical frameworks, and the frameworks used have had a
predominantly economic emphasis. Housework has been examined as the
labor of women and as means for maintenance of the household through
the production of goods and services. Little research or theory has
evolved that examines housework processes in the context of family
life or that considers the implications of housework processes for the
development of human resources of all family members.

The methodology outlined by Glaser and Strauss (1967) provided a
guide for the development of grounded theory related to housework

processes. Data were gathered through participant-observation and

ethnographic interviewing of family members in two households. Both
were intact families with pre-school and school-age children. Family
interaction was recorded using shorthand notetaking. Families were
observed for a total of 77-l/2 hours.

No pre-set hypotheses were used for the research. Rather the
observation data were examined for core categories and basic social
processes that appeared to be integral to housework processes. This
methodological procedure resulted in the following generalizations
relative to family interaction in the housework context:

(1) Perceptions of housework affect the way the household is
organized for the performance of housework; (2) The way the household
is organized for the performance of housework affects the quantity and
quality of family interaction; and (3) Family interaction behaviors in
the housework context affect human resource development of family
members. Further research is needed to test and refine these
generalizations.

Recommendations for future research include identification of
propositions from which hypotheses can be generated for examining
social relations that take shape as the family does housework.

implications for practical application are suggested.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the many people who
helped provide the inspiration, assistance and encouragement which
made this study possible. in particular, i would like to thank my
major professor and adviser, Dr. Beatrice Paolucci, who is a mentor in
the finest sense of that word. Her ideas have been a source of
inspiration to me since I first began reading her work when l was an
undergraduate at Utah State University. It was her faith in me that
kept me thinking and writing when my own confidence was week.

Each member of my dissertation committee also provided valuable
assistance, both in their review of the dissertation draft and in the
instruction and ideas they shared in courses and informal conversa-
tlons. i would like to express special thanks to Dr. Linda Nelson and
Dr. Barrie Thorne who reviewed earlier drafts of the dissertation and
provided invaluable assistance in developing the research methodology
and analyzing the findings.

I owe a special debt of gratitude to the two families who
graciously permitted me to observe them, and who provided insights and
, encouragement as they shared their ideas regarding interaction among
the family members in their households.

Finally, I would like to thank my parents and brothers and

sisters who have encouraged me in innumerable ways. The many hours

ii

spent working together in our home when we were children, talking,
singing, laughing, quarreling, and coping with conflicting goals and
ideas, helped me learn first hand the richness of family life that can

take place in the context of housework.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . .

Chapter

IV.

E NTRODUCT ION O I O O O 0 I
Research Objectives . .
PET-HODOLOGY O O O O O O 0

Selection of Families .
Description of Families
Allen Family Description
Brice Family Description
Data Collection . . . .
Coding and Analysis of Da

REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . .

Home Economics . . . . .
Mainstream Economics and
Sociology . . . . . . .
Marxist-Feminism . .
Summary and Critique

Critique . . . . .

ANALYS' S O O O O O O I O O

Perceptions of Housework
Structure and interaction

Complexity of Structure for Doing Housework
Types of Maintenance Tasks . . . . . . .
Routine Nature of Housework .
Participation of Family Mmeers .
Teaching and Learning Work Skills .
Work Avoidance Behaviors . . . . . .
Motivation to do Housework . . . . .
Division of Labor . . . . . . . . .
DeveIOpment of Sex Stereotypes . . .
Teaching and Learning Decision Making Skills
Development of Attitudes about Tasks . . . .
Other interaction in Housework Context . . .
interrelationship of Structure and interaction

ta

the

iv

Home Economi cs

Page

vi

12
14
16
18
24

27

27
49
66
87
97
103

108

109
114
114
115
116
121
122
129
131
142
148
152
154
157
166

Chapter Page

V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . 168

Summary and Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
Implications for Practical Application . . . . . . . 173
implications for Theory and Research . . . . . . . . 174

APENDIX O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 180

BIBL'OGRAPHY O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 183

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Diagram of Propositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
2. Summary of Propositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182

vi

Historically the subject of housework has been ignored by most
academic disciplines as a topic of serious study. However, since the
1970's there has been a growing interest in understanding the nature
of housework and its relationship to the well-being of individuals and
families. This interest has been precipitated by recent historical
events, including the increasing number of women entering the paid
labor force and the questions raised by the women's movement
concerning traditional assumptions about the roles of men and women,
which have threatened the traditional provision of housework. Little
research is available, however, which can be used to explain or
predict the impact housework processes may have on individuals,
families, and on society as a whole. Existing theories for the
analysis of housework do not adequately encompass the daily
experiences of housework. in particular, there is little theoretical
work available that can contribute to an understanding of family
interaction in the housework context. The purpose of this research is
. to help remedy this deficit.

While housework has traditionally been a subject of interest in
the field of home economics, until recently research relating to

housework has been limited primarily to methods for doing housework in

order to lighten the load of women, and to attitudes about housework.
During the 1970's, however, the emphasis among family economists in
housework-related research has shifted to the measurement of household
production. The disciplines of economics and sociology also have made
contributions to the measurement of household production. The
measurement of household production is considered necessary in order
to arrive at a measure of economic value which may be used for various
purposes, among them: to raise the status of those who do household
work, to derive a more accurate picture of the gross national product,
to form a basis for public policy decisions related to families and
individuals, and to provide a basis for family and individual
decisions regarding participation in paid work and family roles.

There is, however, a lack of agreement as to what activities
and/or products should be included in a measure of household
production, as well as a lack of agreement as to how that product
should be valued (Berch, i978; Manning, 1979). Measures of household
production currently in use focus on the more easily quantifiable
components of household work, primarily time allocated to maintenance
tasks which include housework and the physical care of children. The
economic value of this maintenance product is generally determined by
comparison with market-equivalent forms of production, or what it
would cost to buy an equivalent service or good in the market place.

However, these quantifiable measurements and comparisons can be very
misleading. Emphasis on the measurement of maintenance tasks and the
subsequent assignment of monetary value based on market equivalents

have at least three limitations.

in the first place, the measures ignore the qualitative
dimensions of household production, thus giving an incomplete picture
of production that takes place in the household (Berk, 1980, Brownlee,
1979, Brown, 1982, Boulding, 1977, and Paolucci, 1977). Bouiding
(1977), for example, has stated that "a great deal that is produced in
the household is not measured, particularly in the areas of nurturance
and creative/recreative activity" (p. 3). Time use measures generally
regard these nurturing activities as "secondary," while it may be that
these functions provide one of the principal reasons for the existence
of families. Paolucci (1979) has stressed that household production
is more than a quantifiable product produced in a given time frame; it
is "a process that encompasses many tasks complementing and/or
essential one to another, embedded one into the other relative to time
and labor used. The whole process, rather than its separate parts, is
the critical product" (p. 1).

A second limitation of present household production measures is
the almost exclusive focus on the time investments made by women, or
on the contributions of other family members as reported by housewives
(see Walker and Woods, 1976, for an example). Bouldifig (1977) and
Paolucci (1977) have called attention to the need to identify more
precisely the contributions of all family members to the household
production processes. Berk and Berheide (1978) have demonstrated a
‘ potential inaccuracy in using the report of one family member, e.g.
the wife, for a measure of the contribution of other family members.
in comparing husband and wife reports of participation in household
work, Berk and Berheide found that couples were more likely to agree

on the contribution of each to their respective sex-stereotyped tasks.

H... - -

However, there was a tendency on the part of both spouses to
underestimate the contribution of men to "women's" tasks and of women
to "men's" tasks.

A third limitation of current household production research is
the determination of value by equating the worth of goods and services
produced in the home with the market-equivalent products. Equating
household production with its market equivalents is a serious
limitation because it has led many to the conclusion that the market
equivalents are sufficient substitutes for the work done in the home
(See Galbraith, 1973, and Ferber and Birnbaum, 1977, for examples.)
Brown (1982) stated that a consideration of nothing more than the
timing of housework would indicate that the supposed market
equivalents are not sufficient substitutes for home produced goods and
services. She noted, "The full-time homemaker's provision of round-
the-ciock care of family members' needs makes it impossible to equate
the value of her time with her replacement cost" (p. 155). According

to Brown, the market-equivalents are inadequate not only because "the

household could not contract to buy these services in the small
amounts of time and at the random hours that the housewife actually
performs these duties," but also because "the home economy specializes
in producing mothering and the nurturing of family members along with
personalized care in providing food, clothing, and shelter" (p. 155).
Efforts to measure qualitative dimensions of household production
have emphasized the quantity of family interaction in household
activities (e.g. Davey, 1971), the types of family activities and the
participants' feelings about time spent in those activities

(Goldsmith, 1977), and reciprocity in family activities (Boulding,

1977). Although there is some variation in the research instruments
used in each of these studies, all have depended primarily on self-
report data. Self report measures have limited value in assessing
family interaction, however, since much of family interaction may be
taken for granted by the family and therefore not be reported.

Piotrkowski (1979a) noted limitations in research on family
interaction based on observations in laboratory settings or settings
outside the everyday family environment, as well as in research on
housework that emphasizes the amount of time spent at tasks while
giving little, if any, attention to the interaction that takes place
in the context of the work activities. According to Piotrkowski,
there is a need for research on family interaction in the family
environment which would include observation of the interrelatedness of
family work activities and family interaction.

As has already been indicated, present theory is inadequate for
understanding the dimensions of housework relating to social processes
that may be occurring as part of housework in the family setting.

This lack of theory has resulted in what Berk (1980) described as a
"disturbing tendency" in existing research on women and household
labor to overlook or define away "the most compelling and distinctive
qualities of women's domestic work lives...because they do not 'fit'
the existing models and social scientific frameworks which seem to
serve so well in explanations of other social phenomena" (p. 18).

This tendency is illustrated by D. Smith (1977) in her description of
the problem in applying rational economic models to the analysis of
social phenomena. Smith noted that in the case of housework, this has

resulted in "'reduclng' women's characteristic work and social

relations in the household and family to concepts that analyze them in
terms of their relation to capitalist economic processes" (p. 154).
According to Smith,

Applications of time-budget methods to comparisons between

the amount of work women do in the home and the amount of

work men do outside and inside the home have simply adapted

the distinction between work and leisure in such a way that

the kinds of responsibilities women take in relation to the

home and to the children simply do not appear. The work-

leisure organization applies to employment. The sociological

concepts are borrowed directly from it. if we started with
housework as a basis, the categories of "work" and "leisure"
would never emerge. And indeed, it is hard to imagine how
making use of this conceptual framework it would be possible

to make "work" and "leisure" observable. The social organi-

zation of the role of housewife, mother and wife does not

conform to the divisions between being at work and not being

at work. Even the concept of housework as work leaves what

we do as mothers without a conceptual home. (p. 154)

Elaborating on the inadequacy of present theory for the study of
housework, Berk (1980) stated that "those who embark on investigations
of the household's 'invisible' labor are faced with the perplexing
problem of having few conceptual resources on which to draw which
adequately deal with the social relations under study" (p. 18).

There is a need to deveIOp theory that will lead to an
understanding of the nature and meaning of housework for families.
Housework is a routine and daily activity which occurs in family
settings, and many family interactions take place around the doing of
housework. Theory is needed that will explain the relationships
between the doing of housework, the social relationships that develop
within the family, and the development of human attributes. The
primary purpose of the present research is to contribute to the

generation of grounded theory related to the family interaction

processes in the housework context. Qualitative data, obtained

through naturalistic observation, will be used to provide a basis for
identifying the contribution of all family members to interaction
activities in the household context. The data will also be analyzed
to identify the way housework is regarded, or the perception family
members have of the meaning and purpose of housework and work process.
This approach to the study of family activities is ecological, and
will include observing family interaction in the context of the

household environment.

MW

1. To delineate the process used to develop grounded theory
from observational data.

2. To review the literature relative to household production.
The review of literature is organized by disciplines since
identification of the paradigms guiding the thinking in each field of
study is critical to an understanding of the concepts and theoretical
orientations emanating from a particular discipline or field of study

3. To identify the social structure and interaction processes
that are an integral part of doing housework. This will be based on
the analysis of ethnographic data.

4. To draw generalizations for theory development.

CHAPTER 2
NETHODOLOGY

The methodology for this research follows the procedure outlined
by Glaser and Strauss (1967) for the development of grounded theory.
Grounded theory is the development of theory from data, systematically
obtained and analyzed using a general method of comparative analysis.
Glaser and Strauss stated that "generating a theory from data means
that most hypotheses and concepts not only come from the data, but are
systematically worked out in relation to the data during the course of
the research" (p. 6). in other words, generating grounded theory
involves a process of research in which the product is the generation
rather than the testing of propositions of hypotheses. According to
Glaser and Strauss, the process of developing grounded theory assures
that the resulting theory will fit the empirical situations it is

intended to describe.

The pattern outlined by Glaser and Strauss (1967) for developing
grounded theory provided a guide for the methodology used in this
research. The research procedure included the following steps:

1. Collection of observation data, accompanied by a

simultaneous process of coding and analysis of the data.

a. Generating categories as suggested by the data.

b. Cemparing incidents applicable to each category, and
the context of each incident, to identify properties

of categories.

a. z...

c. integrating categories and their properties.

2. identification of generalizations about relationships

between variables leading to the generation of theory.

The research design utilizes an ecosystem approach to the study
of the family. A basic assumption of an ecosystem perspective is that
family processes cannot be understood without a consideration of the
environmental context. Naturalistic observation, or the observation
of the family in the household setting, was considered the preferred
method for gathering data because it lends itself to first-hand
identification of possible interrelationships between family
interaction processes and environmental context. Observation,
including participant observation where appropriate, as well as
ethnographic interviewing were used as data sources. Pre-set
interview questions and self-report methods of gathering data were
ruled out as possible data sources because these methods require some
a priori knowledge of the nature of family interaction. Using
naturalistic observation, one tries to assume as little as possible
about the nature of the interrelationships between family processes
and environmental context, leaving the researcher more open to chance
discoveries and to the revisions of initial interests and working
ideas. However, the researcher does begin the study with some notions

of what will be observed.

WM

Observation data for this research were gathered from two

families. Data from the first family were used as the primary data

10

source, with the data from the secondfamily providing information for
revising and checking indications of the first.

Since the research design involved working directly with the
families, the research proposal was submitted to the University
Committee on Research involving Human Subjects at Michigan State
University for their approval. The proposal was approved (see
Appendix), and the appropriate guidelines were followed in the
research process to assure respect for the privacy of the family
members. Following the guidelines of that Committee, all family names
used in this report have been changed to protect the privacy of family
members.

Three primary criteria were employed in the selection of the two
families:

1. Each family was to be an intact family that was considered
secure in their relationships with each other. This was an important
consideration since the presence of an observer can create strain on a
family.

2. Each family was to have at least two children, one pre-school
and one school age. This configuration was used to make it possible
to observe sibling/sibling interaction as well as to observe the
participation of children in housework.

3. Employment status of parents was also considered. One family
was to represent the role patterns of husband with work for pay
outside the home and wife as homemaker with no work for pay outside
the home. The other family was to represent the household where both
parents worked outside the home for pay. The basis for this decision

was the idea that the similarities and differences in interaction

11

patterns in the two households could help sensitize the observer to
nuances in family interaction that might otherwise go unnoticed.

The process of locating the first family included contacting
elementary school teachers, ecclesiastical leaders and colleagues of
the researcher. With each contact, the purpose of the research and
the criteria for family selection were explained. When a family was
identified that fit the established criteria, the contact person was
asked to talk with the family to obtain permission for the researcher
to contact them. The Alien family, selected for the first case study,
was identified through a personal friend who talked with the family,
provided a preliminary explanation of the purpose of the study and
obtained permission for the researcher to contact the family.

Operating under the assumption that a two-worker family with a
preschool child would possibly have the child in a child-care
facility, contacts were made with child-care institutions to locate
the second family. However, using this procedure the researcher was
unable to identify a family that met the other criteria for the
selection of subjects, e.g. two-parent family, a school-age as well as
a pre-school child, both parents working for pay outside the home, and
secure family relationships. The Brice family, used for the second
case study, was identified through the help of a personal friend and,
as with the first family, the friend first obtained permission of the
family for the researcher to make contact with them.

The same basic procedure was used in making the initial contact
with each family. First the family was contacted by telephone and an
appointment was made to meet with both the husband and wife to discuss

the purpose of the research. During the initial home visit, the

12

researcher explained that the purpose of the research would be to
observe family interaction during work and other activities. it was
explained there were no pre-set hypotheses for the study, that the
investigator was not attempting to identify what they were doing
"right" or "wrong" but to add to an understanding of the nature of
family interaction during a variety of family activities. The family
was told they would have the right to withdraw from the study at any
time, and that all visits would be scheduled in advance so they could
control the presence or absence of the researcher. The family was
also informed that fictitious names would be used in the research
report to assure the anonymity of the family. Written consent to do
the research was obtained from each family.

The nature of participant-observation methodology was also
explained. The family was told the researcher's primary purpose would
be to observe family interaction, but that the researcher could also
take part in family activities it it seemed appropriate. For example,
the researcher offered to stay with the children if the parents wanted
to spend some time away from home. As it worked out, two observation
periods were spent with the Alien children while the parents were away
from home making it possible to observe differences in the interaction

of the children when the parents were and were not present.

MW

As has been indicated, two families were selected for the study.
The family of Gary and Diane Allen was selected as the primary
subjects. Mr. and Mrs. Allen represented the role patterns of husband

as provider and wife as homemaker. in the second family, that of Lynn

13

and Susan Brice, both spouses were employed outside the home. Each
family had seven living children. in the Allen family, all children
were living at home at the time of the observation. The ages of the
children ranged from 5 months to 10 years. Six of the Brice children
were living at home; the oldest child was living away from home, and
the second child had been killed in an accident a year prior to the
time of the observation study. The ages of children in the Brice
family ranged from 3-1/2 to 19 years.

Both families were members of The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints (the L.D.S. Church, or Mormons). Although
membership in the L.D.S. Church was not a criteria for selection of
subjects, the geographic location of the research was in a
predominantly L.D.S. community which increased the likelihood the
subjects selected would be L.D.S. L.D.S. Church teachings place high
priority on family life and on a work ethic. While the ideas of the
importance of family life and the work ethic are not unique to L.D.S.
families, the prominence of these values in LDS teachings may be an
important factor in understanding how work and family activities in
general are regarded in the families under study.

The L.D.S. Church does not stand alone in its emphasis on the
importance of work, or of family participation in work. For example,
White and Brinkerhoff (i981) interviewed parents and children in 790
Nebraska homes in an exploratory study of the meaning which children's
work has for their families. The findings of the survey indicated
that 82 percent of the boys and 78 percent of the girls in those homes
were regularly required to do chores. Over 70 percent of parents

indicated they assigned household tasks to children primarily for

14

developmental reasons, l.e. to build responsibility, develop
character, and to provide for greater family integration. The
frequency of responses associating participation in housework with
development of attributes prompted White and Brinkerhoff to suggest
the presence of a cultural norm supporting the idea that participation
in housework is good for children and for families. it should be
noted, however, there are other cultural norms and values regarding
housework. As may be noted in the Review of Literature, for many

people housework is generally regarded as drudgery.

AW

Gary and Diane Allen are the parents of seven children: Brian,
age 10; Nancy, age 9; Cristine, age 7; Nathan, age 4; Mark, age 3;
Greg, age 1-1/2; and Alison, 5 months. They lived in a small
university community, population 74,000. They were buying their home
which was located in a low-cost housing area.

Both Gary and Diane Allen are university graduates. At the time
of the observation study, Gary Allen was completing a master's degree
while working part-time at the university. Diane Allen was a full-
time homemaker, although she also sewed clothing items which she
retalied through local stores.

While Gary Allen was in school, the family income consisted of
$500/month from his G.l. bill plus approximately $400 each month from
part-time work. The income from retailing the clothing items was used
to pay tuition and other irregular or seasonal expenses. Mr. and Mrs.
Allen described their financial situation as "tight", but they

indicated they were able to manage comfortably. Their situation was

15

similar to many young families in their neighborhood; according to
Diane Allen, "We're all poverty stricken, but we make do."

Diane Allen had varied commitments outside the family, including
leadership in the PTA, directing a drama production in their church,
and teaching crafts in the church women's auxiliary. She once
described herself as a "selfish" person because she was committed to
spending time on personal as well as family goals. She was critical
of women she described as "martyrs" who spent all their time doing
housework and waiting on their families, then complained they never
had time for themselves.

Gary Allen took an active part in the everyday process of family
living and assumed the resgnsibility for many household work
activities including such tasks as bread making, gardening and food
preservation and other housework. Gary and Diane occasionally teased
each other about having their "genes mixed up" since he enjoyed doing
housework and she enjoyed doing carpentry and similar traditionally
male tasks. Gary enjoyed spending time with the family, and according
to Diane, he became frustrated when he was working at full-time
employment that kept him away from the family more than he liked.

The three oldest Allen children, Brian, Nancy and Cristine,
attended an elementary school located within a block of their home.
Three afternoons each week, Nathan, Mark and Greg attended a
neighborhood "nursery," a cooperative exchange in which the Aliens and
three other families participated. The mothers took turns each week
entertaining the children. Brian, Nancy and Cristina each made a
slggfiicant contribution to household work activities, completing

housework tasks before school in the morning, helping with meal

16

preparation and clean-up in the evenings, and helping with Saturday
cleaning.

Diane Allen described their family as a "normal, healthy family
with the usual kinds of problems." She said they considered
themselves a healthy family in the sense that they had developed
mechanisms for resolving most of the problems that arose. Diane
observed, "Problems are normal, but they don't dominate our lives.

They are just part of the growing up process" (August, 1981).

EclsLfiamJJLDfiicclnllm

Lynn and Susan Brice are the parents of eight children, six of
whom were living at home at the time of the observation study.
Children living at home at the time of the study included Peter, age
17; Beth, 15-1/2; Rachael, 14-1/2; Ted, 13; James, 10; and Steve, 3-
1/2. The Brices lived in a small urban community, population 54,000.
They were buying their home which was located in a subdivision of low
to medium-priced houses.

Lynn Brice held a 8.8. degree from a university, and Susan Brice
had graduated from a music conservatory. Susan Brice had worked in
paid employment for much of their married life, sometimes because of
financial need but also because she enjoyed it. At the time of the
observation study she was employed 20 to 30 hours a week as an
accountant for an accounting firm and also taught 32 piano students
each week in the home. Lynn Brice was employed full time as a
salesman for a local retail business. in addition, the older children
worked at paid jobs, Peter as a custodian for a sports club, and Beth,

Rachael and Ted as babysitters for families in the neighborhood. Mr.

17

and Mrs. Brice considered their financial situation "tight." Lynn's
job paid minimum wage plus commission, which during a depressed
economy (as was the case during the time of the observation study) was
inadequate for meeting basic living expenses.

The family took an active part in church and community
activities. Susan Brice often provided piano accompaniment for local
musical productions. The older boys played on soccer teams; some of
the children played musical instruments and performed in church and
school functions.

Lynn Brice participated in many household work activities,
including meal preparation and cleanup, and the supervision of
children in their work. Lynn remarked that "it took Susan a long time
to get me to do this. i didn't grow up doing it. And there are still
times when i just leave it all to Susan." Susan said that early in
their marriage they talked about role responsibilities, "that if i was
helping bring in the income, then he should help in the home. And
Lynn comes by it naturally, too." Susan observed that Lynn placed
more priority on family activities than he did on paid work
activities. Lynn agreed, saying he believed in the motto, "family
first."

The Brice children assumed considerable responsibility for
household work activities. Peter's regular housework assignment was
the laundry, and the other children (except Steve) rotated housework
tasks on a monthly basis. Susan Brice stated she would like to have
the rotated assignments last a little longer because of the time it
took to establish new routines, "but the kids like to change every

month--they get tired of the same job."

18

Susan Brice recalled that the children had not always assumed
this amount of responsibility for household work. "When the children
were young, those were difficult years." Often she would stay up late
at nights to clean the house following a day of work away from home,
and at times felt she was "drowning" because of the pressure. Susan

added, "but now, the thing i see is we really do enjoy each other."

W
The Allen family was contacted by phone in April, 1980, and an

appointment was made to meet with both Mr. and Mrs. Allen on Sunday
evening, April 27. At that time, the purposes of the study were
explained as noted previously. The parents extended an invitation to
the researcher to return the next evening for Family Home Evening, a
weekly family activity where family business was conducted, where the
purposes of the research were explained to the children and their
cooperation and consent was obtained.

The Allen family was observed for a total of 52 hours, 30
minutes. All observation dates were scheduled in advance, with the
appointment for the next visit usually being made at the conclusion of
an observation visit. The observations were made from May 5 to June
1, 1980. The researcher also met with Mr. and Mrs. Allen in August,
1981, to obtain their response to a preliminary draft of the analysis.
The duration of the observation visits ranged from 1 hour to 22 hours,
the latter including an overnight stay with the family. (The seven
hours sleeping time were not included in the total observation time.)
Overall, observation visits covered all days of the week except

Sunday, and all hours of the day, with the majority of the observation

19

time concentrated during the hours from wake-up until children left
for school, and early afternoon until bedtime for the children.

Mr. and Mrs. Allen invited the researcher to follow them or the
children wherever she chose in order to record the family interaction.
Their home included three levels, a basement, main floor and upstairs.
Most observations were made on the main living level, in the living,
dining and kitchen areas; also observations were made of family
interaction in the basement family room and in an upstairs work room.
The researcher did not consider it appropriate to follow family
members into more private living spaces, such as the bedrooms and
bathrooms. in addition to the observations within the home, there
were observations recorded in the yard outside the home, on a family
walk to the school and church, both of which were located within a two
block radius from the Allen home, on a shopping trip with Mrs. Allen,
a shopping trip with all the Allen family, and an outing with Mrs.
Allen and a group of neighborhood pre-school children.

The first contact with the Brice family was made by telephone in
early March, 1981. An appointment was made to talk with Mrs. Brice in
their home, March 6 at 9:00 a.m. and to meet later that morning with
Mr. Brice at his place of work to explain the purposes of the research
and request permission to observe the family. Both Mr. and Mrs. Brice
expressed interest in the research and agreed to participate in the
study. The Brices invited the researcher to return to meet the entire
family Monday evening, March 9 at 6:30 p.m., to have dinner and
participate in Family Home Evening. During Family Home Evening the

purposes of the research as well as their rights as participants (as

20

delineated earlier) were presented to all the family and their
cooperation and consent was obtained.

The Brice family was observed for a total of 25 hours, with
observation times ranging from 6:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. in the morning,
and from 2:30 p.m. to 9:15 p.m. in the afternoon and evenings. Visits
were made on weekdays and Saturdays; no visits were made on Sunday.
The first observation visit was on March 9, 1981, and the last on
April 18, 1981.

All observations of the Brice family took place either in their
home or in the yard in front of the home. Most of the observations
were recorded from the following locations: outside front of home,
living room, kitchen-dining room, basement family room, as well as the
hall to the bedrooms while family members were engaged in "spring
cleaning" of the bathroom. Mr. and Mrs. Brice invited the researcher
to have free access to any areas in the home, to go wherever it seemed
necessary for the observations. However, the researcher felt it was
more appropriate to limit observations to the more central, less
private areas of the home.

in both the Allen and Brice families, permission was requested
and obtained to use both note taking and tape recording as means of
recording family interaction. Shorthand notes were taken as the
interaction was taking place, and the notes were later transcribed in
typed form. Occasionally the children were distracted from their
activities by the note taking, and would ask the researcher what she
was writing as well as how she could read what she was writing. The
researcher would usually read a few lines of notes to the children

which they seemed to find quite entertaining. Because the observation

21

«5 ~-

notes were recorded in shorthand it was possible to record much of the
dialogue verbatim, as well as record other dimensions of the
interaction. Tape recording was also used on occasion, and the
recordings transcribed. However, this method of recording information
proved to be less effective than the shorthand notetaking since it was
often difficult to separate out the variety of noises when interaction
was particularly concentrated. When transcribing tapes it was also
difficult to identify the context or the physical activity which was
integral to the interaction. Although the parents in each family
granted permission for taping family interactions, in each case they
expressed the idea that they might feel more reluctance to speak as
freely when the tape recorder was running. On one occasion while
taping, Mrs. Brice observed, laughing yet serious, "1 hate recorders."
They apparently did not consider the note taking to be as "final" a
record of their interaction as the taping, and felt the interaction
would be more "natural" if not being taped.

Both families cooperated to maintain as accurate a presentation
of their family life as possible. Examples of this included supplying
the researcher with details of interaction that took place when the
researcher was not present. The Allen family offered to use their own
recorder to tape the first visit with their family when they learned
the researcher had neglected to bring that equipment. The Brice
family taped several hours of family interaction when the researcher
was not present, explaining they wanted her to see how they were when
she was not around. Unfortunately, the volume of the interaction on

these recordings was too low in most cases for these data to be

22

—.~. -

useful; however, the willingness of the family to support the research
in this manner was very much appreciated.

in spite of the families' efforts to maintain normal patterns of
interaction, the presence of an observer in the home undoubtedly
created some distortions. The problem of reactivity is a commonly
recognized limitation of observation research. it should be noted,
however, that the problem is not unique to observation research.
Piotrkowski (19790) has suggested that "whether we are observing,
interviewing, ofi‘studying people in laboratories, the act of research
affects, to some extent, the phenomenon being studied" (p. 305).
Nevertheless, reactivity is a significant variable that must be
considered in the analysis of the observation data.

in the present study, the most common distortion in behavior
attributable to observer presence appeared to be restraining behaviors
that would reflect the presence of strain or conflict. At various
times the parents in each family called the researcher's attention to
what they perceived as changes in family behavior which were due to
observer presence, and in each case the change was in the direction of
restraining "negative" behaviors.

For example, Mrs. Allen mentioned one morning she was feeling
very busy and tense and that normally she would have yelled at the
children when they upset her, "just let it all out." However, because
she was being observed, she "just went downstairs and stared at the
wall" for a few minutes.

Mrs. Brice called the researcher's attention to an example of
restraining behavior during the first visit with the family. Mrs.

Brice indicated that after the researcher left their home that

23

evening, Rachael began to cry and was impatient. While the researcher
had been there, Mrs. Brice had been helping Rachael pin a hem in a
skirt, and Rachael appeared cheerful and patient. Mrs. Brice reported
that after the researcher left, Rachael became upset because she felt
her mother should hem the skirt, and Mrs. Brice felt Rachael should do
it. Mrs. Brice stated she felt Rachael's later behavior was more
typical, especially when her daughter was tired and under pressure.

Piotrkowski (19790) has stated that just as there are forces that
impel individuals to want to put their best foot forward, so there are
forces that "pull systems into their private, habitual manner of
operating" (p. 305). She included among those forces the fact that
work must be accomplished, so individuals tend to resort to their
normal modes of operation to accomplish those tasks, and the presence
of children, who "exert pressures toward habitual behaviors because
their needs are not controlled" (p. 305). Piotrkowski also stated
there will be less changing of behavior as more people are present,
"since family members have interlocking mode of interacting, (and) a
major change in any one member would reverberate through the social
system" (p. 306). Thus the habitual behaviors of the family will tend
to move the system towards normalcy.

it is, nevertheless, necessary for an observer to take
precautions to minimize observer effects. in the present research,
the fact that the families were large and included pre-school age
children helped minimize changes in family behavior due to researcher
presence. in addition, the researcher tried to remain in one place as
inuch as possible while recording observations so as to minimize

calling attention to her presence. Also the observation visits were

24

scheduled in as close a sequence as seemed feasible so the family

would remain more accustomed to the researcher's presence.

IKEUIKLJHULJHEUJfifljLsfi;DaIa

During the observation shorthand notes were made recording as
much of the family interaction as was possible, including notations of
the activity in which subjects were participating, location of the
activity, time of day, and verbal as well as nonverbal behaviors
including tone of voice and body gestures. Following each oéprvation
session the notes were transcribed and typed. N

The procedure recommended by Glaser and Strauss (1967) for
categorizing and analyzing observation data provided a guide for the
analysis of the data. The observation data were first categorized by
noting the types of activities, topics of conversation, and types of
interaction behaviors, e.g. support, helping, affection, put-downs,
teasing, punishment. in addition, notations were added to locate
these processes in their context, e.g. spatial location, time of day,
type of activity, and whether participants were alone or with others.

The categories were then examined to identify patterns in the
data. The initial effort in looking for patterns in the data was to
identify indications of the development of "social products," e.g.
development of human attributes. However, this did not prove to be a
fruitful endeavor since it was soon apparent that the "social product"
in the family does not exist in a finished or final state. in other
words, a person cannot point to a "product" of self esteem, for
example, in the same sense one can identify a washed dish or a bathed

<:hild. Rather, the development of attributes is an on-going process.

..... .

Therefore, the analysis was revised to pay particular attention to the
social relationships that were observable in the housework context.

To identify patterns in social relationships, the categories were
examined to identify how housework was structured, paying particular
attention to who participated in housework and when. The data were
then examined to identify possible relationships between structure and
interaction. Criteria that guided this part of the analysis were (1)
whether the behavior was repeated in two or more instances and
observable in both families, (2) whether the behavior appeared to be
unique because it was seen in the household context, and (3) whether
there was an identifiable relationship between interaction patterns
and the context of the interaction, or between the interaction
patterns and the way in which housework was structured. The data were
also analyzed to identify patterns in interaction behaviors that might
contribute to or constrain the deveIOpment of attributes, and the
context of these interaction behaviors was noted. This was done
through a process of examination and re-examination of the data to
determine if certain types of interaction tended to appear in some
contexts more than others. For example, were parental behaviors
labeled as "support," "helping," "commanding," or "disapproval" more
frequent in one context than in another, and if so, why?
Representative samples of interaction patterns were selected for
inclusion in the analysis. Because of the complexity of family
interaction, it was not uncommon for an interaction sequence to be
assigned to more than one category. in the analysis of the data,
where an interaction segment provided clear illustration of more than

one category the example has been used more than once.

26

As part of the analysis process, researcher observations were
checked against findings in the literature to increase sensitivty to
possible implications of the interaction behaviors. Glaser and
Strauss (1967) stated this comparison process makes it possible not
only to generate the properties of categories and identify patterns in
the data, but also provides for continual correction of the data as
the analyst discovers underlying causes of variation.

Through this process of comparing categories, and identifying
patterns of interaction in relationship with the context of
interaction, the following generalizations were formulated:

1. Perceptions of housework affect the way the household is
organized for the performance of housework.

2. The way the household is organized for the performance of
housework affects the quantity and quality of family interaction.
3. Family interaction behaviors in the housework context affect

human resource development of family members.

The Review of Literature provides an overview of research and
theory related to household work in the fields of home economics,
mainstream economics and the new home economics, sociology, and
Marxist-Feminism. The following questions are considered for each
perspective: (1) What is the basis of their interest in household
work; (2) How is housework conceptualized? What is the nature of
household work? (3) How is housework valued, or what meaning or
importance is attached to housework, and (4) What are the conceptual
frameworks and research methods used in the study of household work

activities?

W

Concerns associated with women's family roles and household work
activities provided a major stimulus for the formation of the home
economics profession. industrialization and factory work, migration
from the farms to the cities, and compulsory education for children
all contributed to changing life styles and created new housework
burdens for women who were accustomed to hired help or assistance from

[extended family and/or immediate family members. Poor sanitation and

27

28

difficult working conditions provided additional problems for farm
families as well as families living in urban tenements.

These changing life styles also meant that many women were not
adequately trained for doing work in the home. The scope of the
problem was described by Clark (1909) in one of the first issues of
the Jgunnal_gi_flgme_£ggngmlgs, in her article titled, "A Campaign for
Home Making."

Home making for wage-earners' families in congested city

districts is one of the most difficult problems in modern

social life. First, the standards and knowledge among women
responsible for the homes are deficient; second, the condi-
tions of home making are extremely hard.

A large number of women marry and set up housekeeping at

about the age of twenty, after, on the average, five years'

work at shop or factory. Work for them began as soon as the

compulsory term of education was ended, so that, even if the
home life was exemplary, opportunity to gain training from it
was small. Often the standard is already lowered by the
struggle against the difficult conditions of tenement life.

Moreover, the mind has not been trained enough to profit by
books and by experience. (p. 167)

Early issues of the 1Qucnal_gi_flgm§_figgngmlg§ contain a pre-
dominance of articles with curriculum suggestions for the education of
women in areas that were considered important for a well-functioning
home: health and sanitation, nutrition, clothing construction,
consumer buying, housework methods and child care. Although some
professionals recommended educating the family as a whole (Burrows,
1913), the education of women in improved standards and methods was
generally considered the more efficient and, apparently, the preferred
way of bringing about the desired changes.

The content of these early education programs and the focus of

early research (Clark, 1909; Williams, 1926) suggest that for many

29

home economics professionals the work of the household was concep-
tualized primarily as the physical maintenance of the family, with
efficiency in the performance of these maintenance functions a primary
goal. However, there were some in the early part of the century who
recognized important social interaction dimensions of household work
activities.

One example is found in the writings of Hunt (1909) who was a
proponent of "cooperative housekeeping" as a method for "lessen(ing)
the amount of work necessary for housekeeping" (p. 219). The
advocates of cooperative housekeeping hoped to promote more effective
methods of housekeeping, higher standards in housekeeping, and "an
equitable distribution of benefits" (p. 220).

There were two variations of cooperative housekeeping. One was a
system of delegating household activities to specialists, e.g.
relegating the tasks of food preparation, clothing construction,
heating and lighting houses and supplying fuel for cooking to
municipal boards and private business corporations and firms. The
other consisted of the "pooling" of household tasks by groups of
families. Hunt pointed out that, even though "delegation" and
"pooling" appeared to accomplish similar ends, the one was not a
sufficient substitute for the other. Municipalities and businesses
might provide goods and services of similar or even superior standards
of quality to those provided through home production, but home
production required the cooperation of family members and was,

therefore, "productive of valuable traits of character" (p. 220). The

30

goal of the advocates of cooperative housekeeping was to extend this
dimension of home production beyond the narrow confines of the home.

They hoped that it would create an environment wider than the
individual home within which a premium would be placed, as it
is in family life, upon those characteristics which draw men
together and enable them to work harmoniously for the common
good, upon trustfulness, unselfishness and forbearance.

They hoped to develop in themselves some of the best and most
desirable of human qualities; adaptability, tolerance, gener-
osity and helpfulness. They hoped that their cooperative
enterprises would be a school in which they could learn and
develop the gentle art of mutual aid. (p. 220)

The ventures in cooperative housekeeping were not successful,
however, one of the reasons being, according to Hunt (1909), that "we
are prone to confuse equitable with equable distribution of benefits
and to adopt the latter which though easy is thoroughly unfair, except
it should be added, where little children are concerned" (p. 221).

in this context, Hunt called attention to the need for methods to
measure qualitative outputs of housework processes, and at the same
time lamented their inability to do so:

We all, it may be conceded, have come to believe that all

children should be given equally good starts in life, equally

pure air, equal access to the sunlight, equally nourishing and
pure food, and equally thorough education and training. But
after peOple are grown and have developed different degrees of
industry, ability and talent, their rewards must, in some
measure, be apportioned to their contributions to the common
life. The more a person puts into a cooperative enterprise,

the more of thought or of labor, the more he should in fairness

get out of it and it is doubtful if we are yet wise enough to

measure either what he contributes or what he should receive in
return. (p. 221)

There were some who considered participation in work in the home
as essential for instilling in children the attributes needed to live
successfully in a social world as were preparation for vocational

training and courses in traditional school subjects. McKeever (1913)

31

expressed concern that some might construe the intent of the child
labor movement to mean that childhood should be relieved of all
industrial practices. in this context he advocated increased partici-

pation of children in housework:

The child that is allowed to grow to maturity without being
required to perform home tasks and duties..., that child is
destined more and more to find himself poorly adjusted to
the coming social order. (p. 137)

McKeever recommended that schools might c00perate in the effort
to involve children in work activities in the home:

The school must teach and explain and exalt common work and
ordinary industry. Pupils are now to be taught early in life,
for example, how to do plain housework (and) ordinary home

chores...as the status of their years and strength may warrant.
(p. 138)

McKeever suggested schools could give credit for home tasks in
the same manner as they gave credit for school tasks:

The ten-year-old boy goes home at the end of the month with

a grade card from his teacher showing his rank in arithmetic,
reading, language and the like, and the next day he returns
with a similar card from his parent showing his grade in
tending chickens, horses or cows: in helping with the house-
work, in carrying wood and kindling, in delivering milk and
running other errands, and the like. The girl pupil carries
home a similar score-card from her teacher and returns with a
like report from her parent. Perhaps she has a grade in dish-
washlng, caring for the baby, doing the bedroom work, darning
her own stockings, mending her own clothes, and the like. The
school grades and the home grades are averaged and the pupil's
standing is thus made out and recorded. (p. 138)

Carver (1913) stressed the importance of the interaction
dimension of housework in an address given at the Sixth Annual Meeting
of the American Home Economics Association. Carver cautioned home
economics professionals against too much emphasis on efficiency by
referring to an example of an efficiency engineer who saw a father

amusing his child by tossing it with his own arms.

32

it occurred to the engineer that there was a considerable waste
of energy in his crude and primitive manner, and that he could
invent a simple machine by which a father could toss the child
twice as high and many times as fast with less expenditure of
energy. (p. 292)

Carver cautioned, "The only reason why we should want to economize
energy is in order to have more energy left for some other purpose
which we consider more important" (p. 293).

Carver expressed concern with recommendations for turning child
care and the care of household over to "experts," in order to
economize energy, while ignoring the values of "pleasure or culture"
which might accrue in these activities:

What is the important thing? What do we want to economize
in? Do we want to economize in these things that are essen-
tial to family building, turn them over to experts and to
institutions in order that we may pursue culture or politics,
or any of these other things? 0r wouldn't it really be less
suicidal even too turn politics or culture over to a few
experts so that we could have more time to look after our
families? (p. 300)

Warner (1915) also expressed the importance of looking beyond the
mere mechanics or quantity of living in our conceptualization of the
work that takes place in the home, and the need to view the work of
the household as more than efficiency in the provision of food,
clothing, and shelter.

Among poor, well-to-do and wealthy there are those who feed,
some who eat, only a few who dine; there are many who are
barely sheltered, some who are comfortably and even luxuri-
ousiy housed, but comparatively few who really live in homes:
there are many whose clothes serve chiefly as covering, many
who are amply clothed for all purposes of warmth and many of
display, a few only whose dress is the outward expression of
an inner harmony. The difference between feeding and dining,
between shelter and a home, between clothing and costume is
not one of quantity, of outlay or even of degree but a subtle
and important quality which lifts them from the realm of mere
physical necessity into one where the spirit also is refreshed.
(p. 8)

33

White (1913) argued that the conceptualization of the work of the
home be given "the broadest possible interpretation" (p. 123).
"Homemaking," stated White, "has to do not only with the physical
management of the home but with those spiritual phases which make
home" (p. 126). She advocated the need for a more complete and
holistic view of family work activities:
Clearly, it is not enough for the person who is interested in
homemaking to know merely the technical processes of the home.
The management of the home, on its material side, is only one
branch of homemaking. There is the element which has to do
with the involved problems of the housewife as a producer and
consumer. Then there is the element which has to do with the
moral factors of the home. Thirdly, the home cannot be detached
from the community but must be interpreted in the light of its
relation to its neighborhood, city, state. Have we carefully
thought out the interdependence of the home and the community?
Do we see clearly the wide influence of the home, the power of
the housekeeper? (p. 126)
in spite of this recognition by home economics professionals of
the critical output in terms of human development that accompanied
housework processes, home economics curriculum and research continued
to emphasize the mechanical or instrumental dimensions of housework.
Housework related research sought to identify means for accomplishing
the tasks of homemaking with greater economy of time and motion, and
of identifying work methods and attitudes that would increase
satisfaction in doing housework. F. Gilbreth (1912) was an early
proponent of applying the techniques of time and motion study which
were proving successful in industry to work in the home. And his
wife, L. Gilbreth, was among the early home economics professionals

who researched means for applying these work simplification techniques

in the home (see Gilbreth, Thomas and Clymer, 1954, for examples of

34

this research). Home economics research on the methods of doing
housework will not be detailed here since it does not relate directly
to the present research. The reader is referred to the text, W9:k_1n_
1h§_flgmg, by Steidle and Bratton (1968) for an excellent overview of
the methodology and research findings emanating from this extensive
body of research.

Kyrk (i933) and her student, Reid (1934) were among the first
home economics professionals to give scholarly attention to the
measurement of the production that took place in households in order
to determine its economic value. Kyrk's interest in the economic
value of housework was grounded in her concern over the low status
accorded women, which she attributed at least in part to the economic

position of women in society. Her ideas were first presented in her

book. WW1. published in 1933. and then

expanded in a later work. W.
published in 1953. Kyrk (1953) explored from a historical perspective

reasons "for the persistent and marked difference in social attitude
toward women's work and men's work" (p. 273). She noted,
in every age and every group the activites rated as most
important have been mainly in the hands of men. in the
hunting and fishing stage women are agriculturalists; in the
agricultural stage they carry on the industrial arts; in the
industrial age they cease to manufacture. (p. 273)
Kyrk (1953) raised the question of "Why?" "Why should arts
’ carried on by women for generations, perhaps even initiated by them,
be developed and become important souces of livelihood only when they

are taken over by men?" (p. 273). And why, in any time and place,

should the work assigned to women be considered drudgery, a concept,

35

she noted, that includes "all those things which in this group at this
time one wins no acclaim for doing" (p. 273).

Kyrk (1953) discounted the popular concept that the subordinate
position of women and the low status attached to household work
evolved as a result of psychophysical differences between the sexes,
the notion that men are by nature more assertive and aggressive as
well as stouter, and therefore, more suited to "exploitlve" work, or
"those things that are worthy, honorable, the most important" (p.
273). Kyrk suggested the more reasonable explanation lay in the one
task that was always delegated to women: care of children. "Women
could not undertake an enterprise that would keep them too long from
the home center or to which they could not carry their children" (p.
274)." They became, of necessity, "Jills-of—ali-trades," devising
ways and means of improving their foods, clothing, shelter, and
carrying on stationary activites: basketry, pottery, spinning and
weaving. "They cannot concentrate upon some one line of production
and subordinate all others to it. instead, all others are subor-
dinated to the children and the three meals a day" (p. 275). The
result, according to Kyrk, was that women remained "eternal amateurs;"
whenever they might choose to pursue an art, they have of necessity
subordinated it to the "exigencies of their preoccupation with
children and housework" (p. 275).

Kyrk (1933) suggested housework had also been accorded low status
because-it had traditionally, been the work of "meniais." For women
vwho had been accustomed to the services of a hired housekeeper, now to

t>e required to perform the "menial" tasks of housework themselves was

36

considered "inappropriate for their position" (p. 85). Kyrk referred
to the following illustration:

in recent discussions of the inadequacy of the income of the

teaching profession it appeared that men in the lower ranks

could afford to hire very little or no household assistance.

As a result their wives were forced either to earn or to cook,

to clean, to care for children, to carry on all the tasks of a

household. To this group of women and their husbands this

situation seemed far from satisfactory. (p. 85)

Reid (1934) shared Kyrk's interest in the economic status of
women and the household. Reid observed that while the household was
an integral part of the economic system and "our most important
economic institution" (p. v), it had been generally neglected by
economists because it was not organized on a price basis as was the
market sector of the economy. Gaining recognition for the contri-
bution of housework to the economic well-being of the family was
considered essential to increasing the status of the women who did
housework. And achieving the goal of recognition of the economic

contribution would, in turn, require devising a means for measuring

that part of household output that had economic value.

in addition to the benefit of increased status which was

associated with recognition of the economic value of housework, Reid
suggested measures of household production would also provide a basis
for family decision-making with respect to employment outside the
home, increase understanding of "home problems," and make it possible
to formulate educational curricula more suited for home and family
life. She felt such measures could also provide understanding of the
«affect of household production on the position of women and the social

life of the family.

37

At the time Kyrk and Reid began their research, the only
available measure of household output was the United States Census,
which for the first time in 1930 called for the enumeration of "home-
makers," l.e. the woman member of the family responsible for the care
of the home and family. Although this statistic gave an indication of
the numbers of women who were engaged in full-time homemaking, Kyrk
(1933) considered it an inadequate measure because it did not account
for the contributions to household production of the many persons who
were engaged in gainful employment. She suggested time-use studies as
a research method for measuring production. A first step in the
measurement process was to clarify the concept of household production
so that production activities might be distinguished from consumption.
While the production/consumption distinction was clear in the market
sphere (production was the creation of utilities and consumption was
their utilization), in the home, the border between the two was vague:

The home...is a center for family life. There the members of

the family receive the companionship, sympathy, affection and

counsel which are the desired by-products of their association.

But how distinguish between these activites which make home

life in the material sense possible and comfortable and those

which result in the other group of values? The fact is that

in the household the economic are so intertwined with other

relationships, the problems and responsibilities of the mem-

bers as unpaid productive agents so intertwined with their

problems and responsibilities as individuals, as husband or

wife, as parent or child, that it is difficult to separate

them. (Kyrk, 1933, pp. 43-44)

However, Kyrk (1933) considered it necessary to attempt to make
the distinction reasoning that "without this differentiation great
«confusion results in discussions of household production and of the

life of home-keeping women" (p. 44). Kyrk recommended household

[>roduction be defined as "all unpaid productive activities that are

38

carried on by individuals for themselves or for their families"
(p. 43). Reid (1934) later refined Kyrk's the definition of household
production to include:

those unpaid activities which are carried on, by and for
members, which activities might be replaced by market goods,
or paid services, if circumstances such as income, market
conditions, and personal inclinations permit the service
being delegated to someone outside the household group.

(p. 11)

Household production, then, was conceptualized as including only those
activities which had direct economic utility. Reid purposefully
excluded from this conceptualization activities which might be classed
as production in the sense they had utility, but which had only social
utility such as purposeful effort to build relationships or any social
interaction which was carried on by individuals to meet their own
needs. These she classified as consumption activities.

Reid (1934) listed the following common household activities
which, according to her definition, resulted in household production:

A. Management:
1. Choice-making.
2. income apportionment, or budgeting.
3. Task, time, and energy apportionment.
4. Planning ways and means of carrying on tasks.
5. Actual direction of the tasks including supervision.

B. Performance:
1. Clerical work in connection with management.
2. Purchasing of goods required by the household or by
individual members of the household group.
3. "Housework":

a. Preparation, serving, care and preservation of
food, and clearing away of meals.

b. Construction and repair of clothing and furnish-
ings, including such tasks as sewing, mending,
darning, and "fancy work."

c. Cleaning and care of the house, furnishings,
clothing, and equipment, including laundering,
daily, weekly, and special cleaning, care of the

39

fires, disposal of waste, repair work of various
kinds, care of pets.

4. Work outside the house, e.g., care of the house sur-
roundings, gardening, dairy and poultry work, operation
and care of car.

5. Care of the members of the family not included in the
above:

a. Physcial care of children and the sick.
b. Child training and education, including
supervision of play.

6. Going and coming on household business, answering the
telephone, the door, receiving packages, being on call
or present in case of need, e.g., remaining in the
house because of a sleeping child. (pp. 75-76)

it was apparently clear in the minds of both Kyrk and Reid that
there was a distinction between the economic and social dimensions of
production in the home, and that however difficult it might be to
distinguish between the two for measurement purposes, there was a need
to measure the economic contribution as something separate and apart
from the social contribution. Kyrk (1933), referring to Reid's
definition and the limitation she placed on household production
(activities that could be delegated to someone outside the family),
stated,

This limitation is suggested in order to rule out of household
production the creation of those utilities due to the associa—
tion of husband and wife, or parent and child. it is obvious
that these utilities although not costiess in time and energy
are not economic in character or origin. Household production
provides the family group with the means of living together as
a consumption group, supplies their common and individual needs
in such form, time and place that life as a family group is
possible. The associations that result from that family life
are the valued products, the ends sought, that hold the group
together. But the mother's joy in the child does not make the
child a producer or give rise to an economic problem, nor do
the companionship, counsel, sympathy and pleasure that any
members of the family may receive from another make of that
other a productive worker. (p. 46)

40

To clarify the distinction further, Kyrk stated:

if (activities) could be performed only by wife or mother, if

they are the products of that status and that status alone,

they are not to be classified as production in the economic

sense. (p. 47)

Reid's (i934) examples of activities of this type included the wife
serving as hostess or as entertaining companion to husband and
children.

Beutier and Owen (1980) raised questions about the adequacy of
Reid's (1934) concept of household production for use in home
economics research. Building on the work of Reid, Beutier and Owen
developed a home production activity model which integrates "social,
psychological and economic theory in a single theoretical construct"
(p. 16). According to Beutier and Owen, the model takes into account
the idea that household production, in addition to providing goods and
services for the physical maintenance of the family, may also satisfy
higher level social and psychological needs. Beutier and Owen have
suggested that while some goods and services produced in the household
may be satisfactorily replaced by market counterparts, others may not
because they contribute to the satisfaction of these higher level
needs. They used the terms "separable" and "inseparable" home
production to distinguish these two types of production. They defined
separable home production as that which "is market replaceable in the
sense that it could conceivably be delegated to a paid worker"

(p. 18). inseparable home production, on the other hand, includes

activities that cannot be delegated effectively to a paid worker

"because of the unique human attributes and relationships involved in

41

the activity" (p. 18). Home economics research measuring household
production has not taken this distinction into account.

As previously mentioned, time-use studies were considered the
most feasible method for the measurement of household production.
Several time-use studies were conducted during the early 1900's, some
with the goal of improving measures of household production, but most
as a means to determine more efficient work methods and standards for
work in the home in order to help relieve the burden of housework.
The studies varied in design and complexity, from one person observing
her own dishwashing methods (Carruth, 1915) to surveys of large
numbers of urban and/or rural households. (For a bibliography of this
research, see Walker and Woods, 1976, Appendix C.) Warren, in the
late 1930's was "the first (of these researchers) to take practical
steps to develop a measurement of household production, to devise a
means of testing such a measure, and to demonstrate that household
production could be measured" (Walker and Woods, 1976, p. 5). Warren
developed the work unit, a time measure which showed the average time
cost of doing a certain quantity of work, which she used as a unit to
measure household production. Walker and Woods (1976) utilized
Warren's concept of the work unit in a study of New York households
conducted in 1955, and in the more extensive time-use study of New
York families conducted in 1967-68.

The goal of the Walker and Woods (1976) research was to measure
"(1) the amount of time spent to keep a household running and (2) the

amounts of goods and services resulting from the time spent" (p. 1).

Data were collected from wives in 1,296 American households. The

42

women were asked to keep a time-use diary for one day and were
interviewed and asked to recall time-use by other household members
for the day previous to the interview. Data were collected only from
wives since "the wife was considered to be the person most informed
about the household work of all workers in the family" (p. 11).
in the Walker and Woods (1976) study, household production is
defined as "purposeful activities performed in individual households
to create the goods and services that make it possible for a family to
function as a family" (p. xx). As can be noted, the definition does
not distinguish between production that has social utility and that
which has economic utility, although one might assume that "the goods
and services that make it possible for a family to function as a
family" would include both those activities which have social as well
as economic utility. in operationalizing the definition, however,
Walker and Woods stated they included only activites that met Reid's
1934 definition of household production, referred to earlier, with the
exception of the "unpaid activities" dimension.
Those activities included:
All food preparation Regular meal preparation
After-meal cleanup
Special food preparation
All house care Regular house care
Special house care

Yard and car care

All family care Physical care
Nonphysical care

All clothing care Washing
ironing
Special clothing care

43

Marketing and management Marketing or shopping
Management and record keeping

(Walker and Woods, 1976, p. 38)

A clarifying concept used in the operationalization of household
production in the Walker and Woods study was the distinction between
primary and secondary time use. Primary time use was defined as time
during which the activity engaged the worker's full attention, and
secondary time as time when some work on an activity was done while
work on another activity received primary attention. An example used
by Walker (1963) to clarify this distinction was of one family member
peeling potatoes while listening to a child report a school
experience. Peeling the potato was considered a primary activity, and
listening a secondary activity. This example illustrates the nature
of many of the activities that were categorized as "secondary."

Walker and Woods (1976) stated that, "Much of the time of parents that
went into being present in case of need or for interaction was
recorded as secondary time" (p. 106).

in the compilation of the Walker and Woods (1976) data, no
attempt was made to combine primary and secondary time "because such
double reporting of time spent would produce data suggesting days of
more than 24 hours" (p. 106). Only primary time-use activities were
used in determining total time use, and these activities consisted
‘ almost entirely of household maintenance tasks.

The foregoing example of time-use research illustrates one of the
limitations of quantitative time-use measures as a measure of house-
hold production. Both by their failure to distinguish adequately

between social and economic components of production, and by the

44

practice of assigning secondary time-use status to all family inter-
action, time-use measures contribute to the "invisibility" of outputs
related to the growth and development of individuals and families. in
this regard, Paolucci (1979) expressed concern that the current
emphasis in time-use research on household maintenance activities, and
particularly as seen from a female perspective, "may obscure critical
sociological as well as economic factors that are critical to society"
(p. 1).

Home Economics research related to housework has included
examination of the managerial dimensions of work in the home in order
to increase understanding of process and style in management to help
the home manager mediate family values and achieve goals. An example
of research examining work activities in the home from a management
framework is that of Nichols (1964) who investigated the relationship
between organizational style of employed homemakers and the amount of
help they received from family members.

Nichols (1964) identified three levels of organization used by
homemakers: (1) one person arranging the parts of one task which the
person is to perform into a sequence or pattern, as exemplified in
work simplification studies: (2) one person arranging efforts for the
completion of several tasks to be performed into a sequence or
pattern; and (3) one person, the manager, arranging the efforts of
' other persons into a pattern for the completion of one or more tasks.
Nichol's research is noted for being the first to investigate this

third level of organization in the family context.

45

The methodology used by Nichols (1964) consisted of collecting
homemakers' responses to open-ended questions regarding various
components or operations of organization, and then categorizing the
responses on two polar dimensions of organization style: person-
centered style and task-centered style. Nichols elaborated on the
distinction between these styles as follows: in task-centered organi-
zation, "the emphasis is on the visible outcome without consideration
for the affective qualities of the task for the performer." in
person-centered organization, "the organizer is concerned with the
task as a means for the growth and development of the performer"

(p. 7). The concern for the individual, however, need not exclude
concern also for the quality of the performance; rather, the task is
seen as an instrument for development of the individual" (p. 7).

Nichol's (1964) research served to identify personal and family
characteristics associated with each style, and added to the under-
standing of the managerial dimension of household work activities, as
well as contributing to an understanding of the meaning that household
work may hold for different people.

Smith (1968) examined interaction patterns in the context of a
specified housework task. She observed mothers with their preschool
children in the home setting while they participated in various
activities such as cookie making, bed making, meal preparation and
' feeding pets. The purpose of Smith's research was to identify verbal
communication patterns of mothers while they shared these activities
with their children, and to examine the relationship between the

interaction patterns and the characteristics of the home environment,

46

including the amount of time spent by mothers in household duties,
e.g. meal preparation, dishwashing, bedmaking, and "tidying up," and
the amount of help with household duties.

Nelson (1963) also utilized a management framework to study
activity patterns, a qualitative dimension of time use, for a sample
of Costa Rican women. She noted a limitation of many time-use studies
is they do not provide insight into the flow of activities as carried
out in sequence, or the activity patterns. Nelson observed, "The
activity pattern concept unites time with the people who live within
it by indicating activities in the order in which they are performed
rather than by aggregate clock time allocated out of the context of
performance" (p. 3).

Nelson's research distinguished between behavioristic activity
patterns, or what people do, and ideational activity patterns, or what
people say they or others have done, do, or will do. The methodology
for comparing the two activity patterns consisted of three steps:

(a) homemakers were asked what they planned to do the following day;
(b) they were observed for the following one-day period, and (c) on
the third day the homemakers were asked to recall the sequence of
activities of the previous day. The findings indicated the three
methods do not yield equivalent data; the homemakers ideational
activity patterns differ from the behavioral. Nelson suggested the
differences provide clues as to the meaning activities may have for
individuals.

A study by Davey (1971) is unique in the sense that it utilized

data from a quantitative time-use study to measure a qualitative

47

variable, family interaction. A major purpose of the Davey study was
to identify shared household activities which could provide oppor-
tunities for socialization and role modeling, as well as to identify
times in the sequence of a day when families interact, where they
interact, and the time spans for the interaction. in her analysis,
Davey distinguished two dimensions of family interaction as they
relate to family work activities: cooperation, referring to help
given by family members in the performance of work, but not necessar-
ily requiring the sharing of time and space; and participation which
requires the sharing of time and space.

An assumption of Davey's research was that family members need to
be together to interact, and that interaction time is necessary for
the socialization and nurture of family members to develop human
resources. Davey utilized data from the 1967-68 Walker-Telling time-
use survey to measure family interaction. She derived a family inter-
action score using time spans where family members were involved in
the same activity for the same unit of time. Activity categories used
were social, eating, household maintenance and care of family members.

Baker (1970) investigated the relationship between family
resource patterns for educability and family status and structure
characteristics for a sample of Cesta Rican families. Two of the
assumptions guiding her research were "(1) Families...may organize
available resources in ways that promote or interfere with the goal of
the development of potential capacities of their members, and (2)
These organizational activities and resources present possibilities of

observation and measurement" (p. 5). One of the purposes of Baker's

48

research was to provide increased understanding of how resources are
organized at the family level to facilitate achievement of family
goals. Four dimensions of family resources were considered:
quantity, quality, availability and use. Quantity of resources was
measured using an inventory of nine resource categories: space,
movement, care and appearance, play, task and work, child's learning,
family learning, child's social contacts and family social contacts.
The quality dimension was determined from the subject's response to
drawings of resource-related activities in the nine resource
categories. Baker's research provides an example of the measurement
of human resources that has potential as a qualitative measure of
household production.

Paolucci (1977) proposed using a human resource development
framework for measuring the qualitative dimension of household
production. She indicated that "the education of family members to
assume productive and supportive roles within the family and in the
larger society is a critical and, at specific points in the life span,
a unique output of household production" (p. 1). Education of family
members, as used in this context, refers to the processes of social-
ization and development that result in the development of human
resources or human capital. Referring to this dimension of household
production, Paolucci (1977) stated,

The family organizes and uses a complex of resources--a mix of

materials, "things," time, labor, talents, skills and space--

to achieve its particularistic set of goals. in most families,

some of these resources are invested in building the human

resource of each family member; i.e. the capabilities of mem-
bers so they can become productive and self-fulfilled persons.

From this stance it is appropriate to view the development of
the human resource as an investment in human capital and the

49

role of the family and its members as one of production.

Hence, a major kind of household production becomes that of

enhancing the productive capabilities of family members. (p. 2)

Home economics professionals today recognize a number of reasons
for measuring household production including the need to raise the
status of those who do household work, to derive a more accurate
picture of the gross national product, to form a basis for the formu-
lation of public policy and legislation relating to families and
individuals, and to provide a basis for family and individual
decisions regarding employment and family roles. Considering the
broad social as well as economic implications of these issues, it
seems critical that these measures of household production consider
the social relations that are integral to housework processes, as well

as the implications for development of human skills and attributes and

family integration.

WWW

There are many references in the literature to the historical
neglect by economists of household production. For example, Walker
and Woods (1976) stated that "for many years, economists interested in
the measurement of national income have included in their estimates an
apology for the omission of household production" (p. i). Glazer-
Malbin (1976) noted that economists have considered measurement of the
economic value of housework an "insoluble problem." According to
Blazer-Malbin, "there is no (theoretical) justification for the
exclusion of an estimated monetary value of housework by neoclassical
or institutional economists for whom housework has economic utility"

(p. 909).

50

in recent years the interest of economists in measuring household
production has increased, apparently motivated by a variety of social
as well as political and economical forces. issues related to the
women's movement, the need for guidelines in formulating family
policy, legal disputes over the loss of wives' services (Glazer-
Maibin, 1976), increasing participation of women in the paid labor
force (Becker, 1976, and Schultz, 1972), studies of marital fertility
(Brownlee, 1978), studies of the cost of living for various groups of
the population (Berch, 1978), and the need for more accurate measures
of the gross national product (Peterson, 1978, and Gauger 1973) are
among the concerns that have brought this need to the forefront.

it is generally assumed when economists refer to the value of
household production they are referring to economic value, although
there are some exceptions, particularly in the New Home Economics. As
a general rule, economists tend not to examine or question values, per
se; rather they provide economic analyses which they assume others
will use to make decisions based on their individual value pref-
erences. This position was iterated by Ferber and Birnbaum (1977) in
their analysis of economic models of household production:

We do not advocate that economists impose their value judg-

ments on others-even if they could. We do advocate that

economists provide information which will enable people who

choose to use it to make more realistic decisions, based on

their individual values and interests. (p. 19)

Following the pattern established by Reid (1934), the economic
models of household production utilized by economists generally

consider the primary household output to be the performance of

household maintenance tasks, including child care. The economic

51

values for household production are computed based on time spent at
these tasks. Although the stated data base for household production
analyses is the time use of the household unit, in reality the data
usually reflect only the time use of the housewife.
Kahne (1975) identified four alternative methods that are used to
compute economic values of household production:
1. Valuing the housewives' contribution as equivalent to
foregone earnings in the market (opportunity costs).
2. Summing the results of application of prevailing wage
rates to each of the "jobs" performed by housewives.
3. Estimating replacement costs of a substitute mother.
4. Considering the comparative advantage of work in the home
and market and hence estimating the value of housewives'
time relative to that of wage-earning women. (p. 1263)
Various economists have noted that these models for computing the
value of household production fall short of optimum. Kahne (1975)
stated that "the absence of data on inputs, the heterogeneity in the
quality of services produced, and the absence of a pricing mechanism"
(p. 1263) all make it difficult to give precision to the calculations.
Peterson (1978) noted that "there is a difference between (1) studies
that estimate the total value of household services performed by all
members of the household, and (2) studies that estimate only the value
of the wife's contribution to providing household services" (p. 146),
so calculations that consider only the contributions of wives give an
inadequate measure.
Brownlee (1978) referred to similar shortcomings in the work of
economic historians. He stated that "very little research has treated

the diverse economic activities which married women have performed

within the household and, more generally, the entire range of trans-

52

actions that occurred within households, outside the marketplace"
(p. 339).

Brownlee (1978) also identified a need for a "clearer under-

. standing of the effect of market and nonmarket forces on the function
of the household and the contribution of family life to economic
development" (p. 208). in support of that idea, he stated:

it is clear enough that historically the family has played an

important role not only in reproducing the species but in

inculcating cultural norms, in training in the division of

labor, in educating both in altruism as well as competitive

virtues, in providing for the intergeneratlonal transfer of

wealth, and in providing for the continuity of social order.

All of these functions have obvious economic dimensions.

(pp. 208-209)

As a means to remedying these shortcomings, Brownlee (1978)
identified the need for "more rigorous measurement of time allocation
within the household" which would help resolve the various interpreta-
tions of household production and "assist in estimating the contribu-
tion of household work to social product" (p. 199). He stressed that,
considering the uses to which the economic measures of household
production are applied, measures that consider only production that
has market equivalents are inadequate:

All of the various interpretations of women's work within the

home are imprecise with regard to the way in which families in

general and mothers, in particular, spend their time at home.

Yet the assumptions made on this point are central to their
content. (p. 205)

Brownlee recommended that economic historians refer to the "old" home

economists for the specification of particularly those work activities

that lack market equivalents.

The New Home Economics, a branch of economics that emerged in the

1960's, represents a new application of economic theory to an

53

understanding of the nature of household production, specifically to
household investments in the development of human capital. Becker
(1974), one of the primary contributors to the development of theory
in the New Home Economics, has applied the tools of economic theory to
an analysis of family interaction and the allocation of time by
households.

Becker (1974) justified his entrance as an economist into the
analysis of the interaction dimension of household production with a
reference to prominent nineteenth-century economists, whom, he stated,
considered these interactions the cornerstone of behavior. Becker
credited these early economists with the idea which forms the basic
assumption of his theory, that families behave rationally so as to
maximize family income. Becker noted that these early economists gave
more prominence to the interactions among individuals which they
considered to be the basic determinants of wants, especially to
variables like distinction, a good name, and benevolence. But "as
greater rigor permeated the theory of consumer demand," these
variables lost prominence; until today "each individual or family
generally is assumed to have a utility function that depends directly
on the goods and services it consumes" (p. 1065).

According to Becker (1976), economics need not be limited to the
traditional study of material goods and the market sector, a view
currently held by many economists, because its definition as the
allocation of scarce means to satisfy competing ends gives economics a
broad scope, and the economic approach to the study of such behavior

has broad applicability. Becker noted that the economic approach to

54

the study of behavior is what sets economics apart from other disci-
plines that also study human behavior. The economic approach assumes
maximizing behavior, market equilibrium, and stable preferences, the
latter having reference to "underlying objects of choice that are pro-
duced by each household using market goods and services, their own
time, and other inputs" (p. 5). This approach, according to Becker,
is a comprehensive one that is applicable to all human behavior,
including the behavior of men and women, adults or children, and
households:

All human behavior can be viewed as involving participants who

maximize their utility from a stable set of preferences and

accumulate an optimal amount of information and other inputs

in a variety of markets. (p. 14)

Becker (1976) stated that his theory on the allocation of time in
households

reformulates the theory of the household so that households are

no longer simply passive consumers of goods and services pur-

chased in the market sector, but active producers of nonmarket-
able commodities, such as health or prestige. These commodities
are produced by combining market goods and services, the own
time of household members, education, ability, and other

"environmental" variables. (p. 87)

Basic to Becker's (1976) theory is an analysis of choice that
places the cost of time on the same footing as the cost of market
goods, and the integration of the concepts of production and
consumption to what Becker referred to as "productive" consumption.
The model assumes that "households combine time and market goods to
produce more basic commodities that directly enter their utility
functions" (p. 91). in Becker's model,

Households are both producing units and utility maximisers.

They combine time and market goods via the "productive func-
tions" to produce the basic commodities, and they choose the

55

best combination of these commodities in the conventional way
by maximising a utility function subject to a budget con-
straint. (pp. 91-92)

Becker (1976) noted that,

(This) integration of production and consumption is at odds
with the tendency for economists to separate them sharply, pro-
duction occurring in firms and consumption in households. it
should be pointed out, however, that in recent years economists
increasingly recognise that a household is truly a "small
factory": it combines capital goods, raw materials, and labour
to clean, feed, procreate and otherwise produce useful commod-
ities. Undoubtedly the fundamental reason for the traditional
separation is that firms are usually given control over working
time in exchange for market goods, while "discretionary" control
of market goods and consumption time is retained by households
as they create their own utility. if (presumably different)
firms were also given control over market goods and consumption
time in exchange for providing utility the separation would
quickly fade away in analysis as well as in fact. (p. 92)

Becker (1976) stated that the assumption that households are pro-
ducers as well as consumers is basic to the theory of the allocation
of time by households.

They produce commodities by combining inputs of goods and

time according to the cost minimisation rules of the tradi-
tional theory of the firm. Commodities are produced in quan-
tities determined by maximising a utility function of the
commodity set subject to prices and a constraint on resources.
Resources are measured by what is called full income, which is
the sum of money income and that foregone or "lost" by the use
of time and goods to obtain utility, while commodity prices
are measured by the sum of the costs of their goods and time
inputs. (pp. 112-113)

The purpose of Becker's theory of time allocation is to explain
the basis of family decisions related to the distribution of labor
between household work and the labor market. Becker (1976) noted,
however, that aside from some empirical work that "has come to my
attention, little systematic testing of the theory has been attempted"
(pp. 90-91).

56

Two of the predictions based on the theory are of particular
interest for this research review:

(A) Members (of households) who are relatively more efficient at
market activites would use less of their time at consumption
activities than would other members. Moreover, an increase
in the relative market efficiency of any member would effect
a reallocation of the time of all other members towards con-
sumption activities in order to permit the former to spend
more time at market activities. in short, the allocation of
the time of any member is greatly influenced by the opportun-
ities open to other members. (p. 108)

(B) A rise in earnings compensated by a decline in other income

so that full income would be unchanged, would induce a de-

cline in the amount of time used at consumption activities,

because time would become more expensive. Partly goods would

be substituted for the more expensive time in the production

of each commodity, and partly goods-intensive commodities

would be substituted for the more expensive time-intensive

ones. Both substitutions require less time to be used at

consumption, and permit more to be used at work. Since the

reallocation of time involves simultaneously a reallocation of
goods and commodities, all three decisions become intimately

related. (p. 113)

Ferber and Birnbaum (1977), while lauding the "important new
insights" gained from the "considerable originality" of Becker and
others of the New Home Economics in applying the economic approach to
an analysis of family behavior, expressed concern that "we are shown
glimpses of the complex reality of the world only to find that they
are totally ignored in the simple, elegant models the authors proceed
to construct" (p. 19). Ferber and Birnbaum acknowledged that the
models have "an honorable place" in the development of theory, but

"for purposes of decision making, they do not reflect reality"
(p. 19).

Ferber and Birnbaum began by questioning the basic assumption of
the economic model: that people always behave rationally to maximize

income. Ferber and Birnbaum argued that family decisions are based

57

more on tradition than on rationality, and that the family does not
behave as "one unit, single-minded, and indivisible" (p. 21).

Referring to prediction (A) of the Becker model, that households
would allocate participation in market activities to the individual
who would be most efficient in that area, Ferber and Birnbaum stated
that tradition and custom determine whether or not a person is trained
for homework or market work, and it is that, not rationality or
efficiency that determines the allocation of time. Women specialize
in homework, according to Ferber and Birnbaum, because of tradition
and custom; they have less opportunity to specialize in market work
and therefore earn less in the labor market. The result is a circular
relationship: "women specialize in housework because they earn less
in the labor market, and they earn less in the labor market because
they specialize in housework" (p. 20).

With regard to the second part of prediction (A), that as one
member increases in relative market efficiency there would be a re-
allocation of the time of other members towards consumption activities
(housework), Ferber and Birnbaum (1977) referred to the time-use
studies that show that even when wives are working outside the home,
husbands spend very little more time on housework. Here again,
according to Ferber and Birnbaum, it is tradition and custom rather
than efficiency that is the determining factor.

Ferber and Birnbaum (1977) did not take issue with the second
pre-diction (B), that as time becomes more expensive, goods would be
substituted for time, and goods-intensive commodities would be

substituted for time-intensive ones, making it possible to spend more

58

time at work and less at consumption (housework). Rather, they argued
in favor of the substitution of market goods and services for home
production. Ferber and Birnbaum stated that "all housework can be
performed by a hired housekeeper" (p. 25) and taking into considera—
tion the relative value of market work and housework, suggested that
individuals who would still choose to do the latter would be
"squander(lng) their time and (would) get little to show for it"

(p. 27).

Although Ferber and Birnbaum did not specify what they included
as housework in the above reference, it seems apparent from the
subsequent discussion they were referring to child care as well as
household maintenance tasks. in considering the issue of whether
services performed by the housewife herself would be more valuable
than comparable ones performed by a hired worker, they referred to two
dimensions of value beyond the economic dimension: (a) the quality of
the services, and (b) the satisfaction of enjoyment derived from
providing them. Neither was considered a rational basis for time-
ailocations between housework and market work. To support their
assertion, they sited observations from history:

Throughout history, and throughout the world, all household

tasks have been relegated to hired help by truly wealthy

families. This is true not only of housecleaning, laundering,

gardening, and cooking, but is equally true of child care.

(p. 26)

Ferber and Birnbaum also discredited the arguments that the
housewife would be better suited to do the work because of better

education and more experience. They did make an exception for child

care, but added,

59

Lest we be tempted to assume that mothers accumulate a great

deal of valuable experience in this field, we need to remem-

ber that in the typical modern family with one, two, or at

most three children, a parent is somewhat in the position of a

teacher who has to move on to the higher class with the chil-

dren each year. A practical nurse used to caring for infants,

a nanny moving from one family with young children to another,

and governness always in charge of young teen-agers would be

far more likely to have gained useful experience. (p. 26)

Ferber and Birnbaum suggested that, "if a mother's presence for young
children is considered especially important, it is possible to add a
higher percentage (in the decision model) when there are young
children in the house" (p. 26). They added that "while such estimates
involve subjective judgment they have the considerable advantage of
making these judgments clearly and explicitly" (p. 26).

Brown (1979a) took the position that household work activities
performed by family members and the market substitutes are non-
comparable and cannot be satisfactorily substituted one for the other.
She asserted that attempts of economists to "force analysis of the
family's behavior into a rational decision-making model during a
period when noneconomic forces have become more powerful have severely
limited the economist's ability to analyze in a meaningful way the
changes occurring in the economic activities of families" (p. 3).

According to Brown (1979a), "economic forces are most powerful
when people live close to a subsistence standard of living and cannot
afford to ignore the economic constraints they face because they
cannot afford to make economic mistakes" (p. 3). in times of relative
affluence, however, when people have more discretionary power over

their work and consumption activities, economic constraints are less

powerful. Brown stated,

60

indulging in one's own preferences is a modern-day luxury,

and it allows irrationalities or noneconomic forces to play a

larger role in decision-making. Economic forces remain impor-

tant, but economists must broaden their analysis of family
behavior by looking at the social and political forces that
simultaneously shape people's preferences and affect the price

structure and income distribution. (p. 4)

Brown (1979a) defined housework as a "necessity" in that it is
(a) readily available under normal circumstances, and (b) taken for
granted until the process of obtaining it is disrupted. The purpose
of her analysis was to examine "how current changes in the family and
in women's work have actually affected the provision of (these)
essential housework services" (p. 2), and what influence changes in
the provision of housework services may have on families.

Brown divided housework according to its noneconomic components:
providing security, sex, love, support, and nurturing; and its
economic components: providing food and clothing, keeping house, and
child care. Brown suggested that, although these work activities may
have decreased in Lelaijxe importance over the past fifty years as a
proportion of the total consumption activities of family members, they
have not diminished in absglgig importance.

Brown (i979a) identified four characteristics of housework and
market work that act as constraints on women's time allocation
decisions: (1) timing--provision of goods and services must be pro-
vided at times dictated by human needs; (2) a minimal amount of house-
work is required in order for the family to function; (3) market work

must be done in blocks of time at specified hours, and (4) most

services provided within the home cannot be substituted with goods and

61

services bought in the marketplace. Brown stressed it is this latter
point that has been "less obvious" to economists.

Utilizing data from the 1972-73 Consumer Expenditure Survey,
Brown (1979b) showed there has been very little substitution of
market goods for homemaker's time; both employed wives and full-time
homemakers have similar expenditure patterns. Using a comparision
measure that takes into account a family's assets, number and ages of
children, the life-cycle stage of the family head and the work status
of the wife, and the family's after-tax income, Brown illustrated that
"for some categories of expenditures--house furnishings, furniture and
appliances, and health care--the wife's working status made no
significant difference" (p. 182). There was, however, a difference in
expenditures between the two groups in those areas where additional
expenses are incurred when a wife takes a job--working wives spent
more for transportation, Social Security, and clothing.

Strober and Weinberg (1980) found similar results in their study
of strategies used by employed and nonemployed wives to relieve time
pressures.

Holding income and life-cycle stage constant, neither wives'

employment nor recent entry into the labor force are signifi-

cant determinants of the purchase or ownership of labor-saving
durables such as microwave ovens and dishwashers. ....working
wives and nonworking wives are generally similar with respect

to method of meal preparation and shopping behavior. (p. 338)

Similar patterns have been found when comparing the substitution
of services in families. Walker and Woods (1976) found that very
little work was done by anyone outside the family or by commercial

services; and whether the wife was employed or nonemployed made very

little difference in the amount of commercial services used.

62

Brown (1982) suggested this lack of substitution of time and
market goods in housework activities is due in part to the
personalized nature of home production. "The home specializes in
producing mothering and the nurturing of family members along with
personalized care in providing food, clothing and shelter" (p.155).
Brown also noted that "the round-the-clock care of family members'
needs makes it impossible to value her time with her replacement cost"
(p. 155).

The personalized and on-call nature of her work prevents us

from evaluating the services of the housewife as a combination

of so many hours of chauffer, cook, babysitter, and laundress
per day. in the real world, the household could not contract
to buy these services in the small amounts of time and at the
random hours that the housewife actually performs these duties.

Even in those instances where the contracting of some services

occurs, the service is more impersonalized and must be directed

by someone (usually the housewife). The purchased services

usually do not reflect the kind of service the housewife pro-
vides because she intimately knows the members she is serving
and she takes responsibility for organizing and providing the

care as it is needed. (p. 155)

Brown concluded that the goal of economic efficiency does not

provide the basis for family time-allocation decisions. She stated

that if it did, we would see more families resorting to economies of
scale: families banding together with other families to share house-
work activities and capital equipment. Brown noted what we do see are
families investing large amounts of resources in order to buy privacy
and independence.

Brown (1982) noted that it is the noneconomic component of house-
hold work activities, the provision of security, love, support and
nurturing, which represents the real cost in the changing distribution

of time between housework and market work. Referring to the Walker

63

and Woods (1976) study, Brown (1979b) indicated the major difference
between the employed and nonemployed wife's housework activities
occurred in the category of secondary, nonphysical family care, with
employed wives spending less time in these activities. Brown
suggested this may be because much of the housework is done at a time
children are most likely to be doing homework, watching television, or
sleeping. Brown (1982) added,

As we experience the personal cost of our economic gains, then

perhaps we will be willing to rethink the relative importance

of the economic gains versus our noneconomic needs for love,

self-development, and satisfying relationships that come with

a good home and community life. (p. 166)

Berch (1978), also an economist, proposed a model for examining
housework that considers both the social and economic components of
housework. Berch noted there is a lack of agreement as to how house-
work should be valued due to the lack of conceptual clarity as to what
housework is, whether production or consumption, and of goods and
services or both, and to the lack of agreement among housewives as to
whether housework is work or leisure. Berch used the distinction
between task-oriented labor and time-oriented labor as a model to
explain why, with the availability of technology, all goods production
in the household has not been transferred to the market leaving the
household as a consumption sphere only. Berch noted that over time
there has been little or no decrease either in the amount of time
spent on housework or with the problems of fatigue and dissatisfaction
associated with housework.

Berch described the household production process as "a combina-

tion of inputs to produce outputs under a given set of tastes, a set

64

of budget constraints and a technological framework" (p. 337). inputs
include both labor and goods. Outputs include tangible goods and
services, both having quality and quantity dimensions, as well as
intangibles such as "atmosphere," or "a good environment." She noted
that the intangibles are not only important ouptuts, but "are very
sensitive to changes in the production process, and thus cannot be set
aside after initial consideration" (p. 341).

According to Berch's analysis, women are the primary suppliers of
labor inputs. She stated that labor inputs from others have declined
due to compulsory education of children, the lack of availability of
household help, fewer live-in relatives such as the maiden aunt, and
very little help from husbands.

Berch identified four characteristics which she suggested are
critical elements of housework. The first dimension is timing: some
tasks are periodic, some continual, and some must be accomplished in a
given sequence. A second characteristic, which Berch referred to as
an "unusual" dimension, is that the work is supposed to satisfy the
creative needs of the doer and provide self-fulfillment. A third
characteristic is that it involves many tasks, most of which are
performed by the same worker. The fourth characteristic referred to
by Berch is the criteria for evaluation of efficiency:

The whole cost efficiency calculus for the household produc-

tion process is unique, since the quality of the output is

possibly more important than the quantity. Furthermore, the

housewife may value her labor as a "free input" once she has
incurred the fixed cost, the "overhead" of having decided not

to work in the market but to stay at home. Normally, a firm

with a large overhead would spread the costs by expanding

scale of production--an option not always available to the

housewife. True, she can decide to increase the ratio of home-
produced to market-produced goods in her expenditures (as long

65

as she's home all day, bake bread, make her clothes....) but

she will not, normally, decide to double her family size, or

merge households with the family next door. (p. 342)

Berch added that the ultimate evaluation of her efficiency is "not
only on the basis of £951 efficiency, but on the quality of the
products, on the intangibles of the 'atmosphere' produced, and on how
completely she is satisfied or 'fulfilied' in doing it" (p. 342).

Berch recommended a distinction between task-oriented labor and
time-oriented labor as the basis for a model to explain the develop-
ment of housework. Housework in pre-industriai times was task-
oriented labor where "work" and "life" were intertwined and the goal
was to accomplish a set of activities rather than the efficient use of
time. Berch indicated the time-oriented mode is a product of indus-
trialization; here work is typically regulated by the clock or
performed with respect to a time efficient dimension.

Although time-oriented housework may involve performing

similar activities as task-oriented housework, it is done

with a different motivation and set of constraints. Time

oriented housework is based more on a cost-efficiency model;

as in industry, the work should be performed so as to use

new technological devices to save time, effort, and, if

possible, expense. (p. 345)

Berch stated that the model explains why even though task-
orlented workers may buy labor-saving technology, it has not reduced
the time required for housework: "they buy the machinery to improve
the quality of their output, or the quality of their work experience"
(p. 346).

Berch suggested the task- and time-orientation model helps

explain "many curious phenomenon about housework" (p. 346):

it explains why housewives, when asked to report specifically
yielsune activities, still respond with monk categories. it

66

explains why one segment of housewives (the task-oriented)

complain of their lack of status. it explains why loneliness

is a major problem for them, since task-oriented work is tradi-

tionally sociable, and why they shop so frequently to escape

loneliness. (p. 346)

Berch stated the model also helps explain the status problem of
houseworkers, suggesting the feeling they are performing useless or
unproductive work "has its roots in the denigration of housework by

those accustomed to time-oriented labor" (p. 344).

59919199!

The appearance of housework as a topic of research among sociol-
ogists is relatively recent. Noting the historical lack of research
related to housework, Oakley (1980) stated,

it is simply amazing that an activity which consumes a large

proportion of the daily energy of 85% of the adult female

population as housewives and of a majority of the total pop-
ulation in one form or another should have been ignored so

completely for so long. (p. 9)

During the decade of the 1970's, housework began to receive the
serious consideration of a number of social scientists. According to
Berk (1980), this growing interest was a reflection of the need to
gain greater understanding of "the changing realities of work and
family life for women," which, she added, "cannot be fully understood
or even adequately described without attention to this 'invislble'
labor and the social relations that surround it" (p. 15). However,
very little sociological research and theory related to housework has
considered the social relations that surround housework; rather, the

emphasis has been on analyses of housework as labor and on housework

as a component of the role of housewife.

 

67

Sociologists have variously conceptualized housework as "any pro-
ductive household activities associated with either home 'maintenance'
or family 'maintenance'" (Berheide, Berk, and Bark, 1976, p. 494), or
as something greater than the sum of the individual maintenance tasks.

The latter conceptualization emphasizes primarily two components of

 

the "larger" dimension of housework, attitudes about housework and the
satisfactions and tensions of the housewife role (Berch, 1978).

The various conceptualizations of housework indicate some
ambiguity among social scientists as to the nature of housework, what
it is and how it should be valued. For example, Olson (1979) noted a
lack of conceptual clarity in sociological literature, specifically
between housework and child care, i.e. some social studies include
child care as housework while others dichotomize them. Olson asked,
"Since it is impossible to care for children without cooking,
cleaning, and so on-all activities which are commonly labeled
housework--ls it appropriate to differentiate between the two
activities at all?" (p. 443). Olson suggested an alternative would be
‘to distinguish between direct and indirect child care. Direct care,
according to Olson, would include any care that requires the parents
attending to the child in a physically proximate way, such as showing
affection, supervision, verbal interaction, and physical care.
indirect care would be that which provides for the needs of the child
ert does not involve direct personal contact between parent and child.

Sociological studies on housework tend to take one of two basic

apuaroaches. One is an institutional perspective that includes studies

crf social stratification and of the relations and contradictions

68

between paid work and family work activities. in this approach,
housework is conceptualized as labor, or as an occupation in the same
sense as other occupations in the paid labor force. The other per-
spective is that of role theory, which examines the various dimensions
of family roles, including the variables of role norms, sanctions to
enforce the norms, role enactment, role strain, and role identifica-
tion. in this approach housework is regarded as a primary component
of the homemaker's role.

The review of literature will first consider research from the
institutional perspective, specifically research on social stratifica-
tion. Traditionally, stratification research has assumed women derive
status from the occupation of their husbands, and any status that
might be accorded women and household labor independent of their
husband's occupation has been ignored. For example, Treiman and
Terrell (1975) have noted that, until recently, "women were routinely
excluded from stratification studies on the ground that their experi-

ences were too complicated for analysis" (p. 174). in their study,

Treiman and Terrell examined the process of status attainment for men
and women. However, they gave consideration only to the work of women
in the paid labor force; no mention was made of household work. There
is a similar deficiency in the work of Oppenheimer (1977). She
referred to a "rapidly blossoming interest among stratification
researchers in measuring the socioeconomic status and social mobility
of women," and stated that her interest was in "the causal relation-
ship between the wife's socioeconomlc contribution to the family and

her husband's socioeconomic characteristics" (p. 389). However her

 

69

.--.. ---

analysis considered only paid work as being part of the socioeconomic
contribution of women.

The work of Trelman and Terrell (1975) and of Oppenheimer (1977)
illustrates an assumption common in early stratification literature
that housework is not work and is a non-status occupation. Some
recent stratification research, however, has attempted to compare
housework as an occupation with other occupations in the market place
as it contributes to the status of women as homemakers. One such
study was done by Bose (1980), who explored the place of the occupa-
tional role of housewife in social mobility research. According to
Bose, part of the difficulty in measuring status of the housewife is
due to the lack of agreement on "the components of the homemaker job
and the function this job has in the larger stratification system"
(p. 69). The practice of defining the occupation of housewife in
terms of labor force equivalents (cooking, cleaning, caring for
children, nursing, and administrative skills) is inadequate, according
to Bose, because there are aspects of the job that have no labor
market equivalents, such as straightening up or nurturing. "Thus the
housewife role is greater than the sum of its market-defined parts"
(Bose, 1980, p. 76).

Bose's method for resolving the problem was to find an approxi-
mate labor market equivalent of the role and average the prestige
scores of those occupations. Bose (1980) asked survey respondents to
rank the occupations of housewife and househusband by sorting 110
vignette cards each representing separate occupations. Based on the

results of the survey, Bose assigned housewifery a prestige score of

70

51 of a possible 100 points. Bose offered the following explanation
of the various prestige rankings assigned by men and women to the job
of housewife:

Exactly how a women views this role depends on her other job

options and need for income, such that the status of house-

wife is higher than most working-class women's jobs, but

lower than most middle-class women's jobs. So the former are

likely to be satisfied with the role and latter to be dissat-

isfied. Further, those who have been in the paid labor force

are likely to be so dissatisfied as to lower their ratings of

housewife.... Exactly how men view the role depends primarily

on their age. (p. 84)

in response to the question as to why so many women choose paid
jobs that have lower status than housewife, Bose suggested several
possibilities including what she said was "the most obvious, that
status is not the major motivation in making decisions" (p. 80).

Acker (1980) has argued that the role of housewife cannot
accurately be compared with other occupations in social stratification
research because it is "an occupation with no income and with incum-
bents whose education spans the whole range of possible levels"
(p. 28). Acker suggested that if the prestige accorded the housewife
is attained using non-economic criteria, the score cannot represent
her true socioeconomic position. According to Acker, what the score
does represent is "the generalized perception that the role of
housewife is an honorable one for women" (p. 29). Acker added that it
may also indicate "that women, as women, are given a middling sort of
respect in our society" (p. 29).

in a review of recent stratification research, Acker (1980)

emphasized that a primary criteria for evaluating the usefulness of

any stratification theory is whether it can help understand or explain

71

the disadvantaged and subordinate position of women in society. Acker
stated that housework, or the role of housewife, would enter into
stratification theory not as an occupation to be rated against other
occupations but as a variable that must be considered in order to
understand the subordinated position of women in the paid labor force
and in society.

Oakley (1980) emphasized the need for additional research that
would examine many of the assumptions responsible for the disadvan-
taged position of women and the low status attached to the labor of
women, both in the home and in paid labor occupations. Oakley noted
among the assumptions that should be questioned those that assume
housework requires less skill and is less demanding than other
occupations, and that because it is not economically compensated it
makes only a marginal contribution to the national economy. Oakley
added that the most fundamental assumption that must be questioned was
the belief that "since only those who are economically productive do
'real' work, housework is not real work at all: in its unreality it
is either not work or an intrinsically trivial work activity" (p. 8).
With regard to the latter assumption Oakley stated, "Any academic
study of household labor must challenge at least the last of these
assumptions by saying that housework is important enough to be
studied" (p. 8). Noting that "many who have researched and discussed
household labor in recent years have challenged much more of the
stereotype than this and have exposed other important dimensions of

what could be termed the 'official morality' of housework," Oakley

 

72

made a plea to go beyond these stereotypes "to research and make
accessible the process of household labor" (p. 9).

Blazer-Malbin (1976) has indicated the interest of role theorists
in the study of housework and the homemaker role began in the mid
1950's with the Blood and Wolfe studies on the division of labor in
the family. According to Blazer-Malbin, their interest was motivated
by "a concern with the effects of a wife's working outside the home,
with the availability of kinship networks, and with the marital
division of labor" (p. 907). The research studies of Lopata (1971)
and Oakley (1974) were among the first to consider the influence of
housework on the roles of women, both within the family and in
relation to the larger social structure.

Nye (1976) identified the following family roles: provider,
housekeeper, socialization, child care, kinship, sexual, recreational,
and therapeutic roles. According to Slocum and Nye (1976), the house-
keeper role includes all of the instrumental tasks in food processing,
cooking and serving, cleaning, laundering, repair of clothing and
household equipment, marketing, and keeping the financial records
relevant to these tasks. Slocum and Nye made a distinction between
housekeeper and housewife roles, noting that housewife "seems to
include everything that wives usually do within the confines of the
home..., everything except provider" (p. 90).

Gecas (1976) defined the socialization role to include activities
concerned primarily with the social and psychological development of
the child, with child care including the physical and psychological

maintenance of the child. Gecas noted that in actual family life

73

there is considerable overlap between the socialization and child care
roles in that socialization takes place while the child is being cared
for.

The therapeutic role was defined by Nye (1976) to include
listening to problems, sympathizing, giving reassurance and affection,
and offering help in problem solving. Nye treated the therapeutic
role as a hypothesis since it has received little attention in studies
of family role theory. According to Nye, the criteria for determining
whether the role exists includes "the beliefs of respondents that
spouses have a duty to perform the role and evidence that some type of
sanction is provided for nonperformance of the prescriptions and
against behavior violating the proscriptions" (p. 118). Data for
testing the hypothesis were gathered using parallel questionnaires for
husbands and wives in 210 couples. Based on the responses, Nye
concluded:

The normative, sanction and behavioral data confirm the hypoth-

esis of a therapeutic role--one not confined to the middle

class or any other narrow segment of families. However, an

appreciable minority of spouses do not view it as a duty or

enact it in any positive way. Thus, the role does not appear

to be as fully crystaiized as some of the traditional family

roles. initial data suggest appreciable sex differences--not

only that more women enact the role well, but also that they

value it highly. (p. 129)

Research based on role theory has included survey research com-
paring satisfaction with paid work and full-time housework. For
example, Ferree (1976) conducted a survey comparing housework and paid
work as sources of satisfaction. Respondents were predominantly

working class women, living in the Boston area, and all were living

with their husbands, had no preschool children and at least one child

74

-.. --.

in the first or second grade. Ferree concluded that for this sample,
"full-time housewives were more likely to be dissatisfied with the way
they are spending their lives, to feel that they have not had a fair

opportunity in life, and to want their daughters to be 'mostly
different' from themselves" (p. 434).

Ferree (1976) reported that working women generally had higher
levels of competence and self-esteem, greater opportunities for inde-
pendence and self-determination, and "despite the strains of carrying
a double role, the woman with a fulltime outside job is happier and
feels herself to be better off than the fulltime housewife" (p. 434).

Wright (1978) called attention to a "curious imbalance" between

reports of job satisfaction for men and for women:

When the focus is on working men, the most commonly encountered
themes are that work is degrading, demeaning, alienating, and
unsatisfying. in contrast, when the focus is on working women,
the positive, liberating, self-enriching aspects of the work are
emphasized, this despite the fact that women tend to be excluded
from the presumably more satisfying professional and managerial
careers. (p. 302)

Noting that about three-quarters of the "outside" work that women do

is semi-skilled work, low-level clerical work and service occupations

such as waitresslng and cleaning, Wright stated,

in order to sustain a generally positive imagery of women's
labor-force participation in light of these facts, contrast
is sometimes drawn with the only obvious alternative for most
women: fulltime housewifery. The implication, often stated
quite explicitly, is that nearly anything is preferable to

IhaI. (p. 302)
Wright suggested the possibility that some reports of the dis-

satisfation felt by housewives were overemphasized or exaggerated. He
noted, for example, that the actual statistical differences reported

by Ferree (1976) in reported happiness and satisfaction between

75

ha ~7-

working women and housewives were not very sharp. Wright attempted to
replicate Ferree's major findings using data from the "Quality of
American Life" survey conducted by campbell, Converse, and Rogers in
1971, and also data from five General Social Surveys conducted by the
National Opinion Research Center between 1972 and 1976. The findings
from this analysis were that there were "no consistent, substantial,
or statistically significant differences in the reported happiness of
working women and housewives" (p. 306). Wright stated,

The inescapable conclusion is that for large proportions of

housewives, fulltime housewifery is preferred to outside work,

and moreover, that housework is a genuine source of satisfac-
tion to them, something they say they like to do. Even for
women currently working outside the home, there is very little
indication that their household chores are a source of dissat-
isfaction for them or that their housework is less important

to them personally. (p. 307)

However, Wright's research (1978), as well as Ferree's (1976),
indicated that at least some women are not satisfied with the role of
homemaker. Some sociological research has explored possible sources
of dissatisfaction with the homemaker role or with role strain.
Oakley (1974), for example, has suggested that one source of role
strain is that child care and housework are often contradictory roles,
not in the sense that children "untidy the tidy house," but that:

The two roles are, in principle, more fundamentally opposed.

The servicing function is basic to housework; children are

people. Child-care is 'productive'; housework is not. House-

work has short-term and repetitive goals; the house is cleaned

today and again tomorrow, and so on.... Motherhood has a

single long-term goal, which can be described as the mother's

own eventual unemployment. A 'successful' mother brings up

her children to do without her. (pp. 166-67)

Olson (1979) also suggested that the housekeeper role and the

child care role may be incompatible. She noted that the assumption in .

76

our society has been that the two roles naturally fit well together,
with the tasks of both roles being typically assigned to the same
person. Olson stated that in fact, however, there were conflicts
between the roles that have implications for the mother as well as for
family interaction. To evaluate the impact of these potential
conflicts on family interaction, Olson interviewed 27 mothers of
preschool children and made field notes of the mother-child inter-
action during the course of the interview. The incompatibility of the
two roles was considered at both the social-psychological level and
the structural level.

At the social-psychological level, Olson (1979) identified the
following factors that influence role incompatability: (a) the tasks
cannot always be performed simultaneously, with the result that one
may be neglected at the expense of the other; (b) allocating time and
energy to tasks requires an assessment of the relative importance of
tasks; (c) the tasks mutually interrupt and intersect each other, e.g.
children interrupt mothers while they do housework, and children's
activities create the need for additional housework; (d) conflicting
goals for each role, e.g. wanting children to have freedom to explore
and manipulate their environment may conflict with the goal of an
orderly house; (e) the belief that the tasks of housework and child
care are compatible may cause frustrations and feelings of personal
inadequacy when an individual finds it difficult to combine the two;
and (f) criteria for task evaluation are sometimes ambiguous; and in
the case of child rearing it is difficult to foresee the impact of a

given child rearing practice.

77

At the structural level, Olson (1979) suggested:

The incompatibilities between housework and child care stem
from the allocation of the two tasks to the same individual
within a privatized household setting. The elaborate def-
initions regarding appropriate child care, the high level of
importance assigned to it, the relative absence of productive
activities of which children can be a part, and the absence
of multiple adult caretakers to share in the child-rearing
task all make their contribution to the potential role con-
flict between housework and child care. (p. 452)

Olson (1979) found that a number of specific variables served to
increase or decrease the experience of housework-child care conflict,
including "ages and number of children, children's health and tempera-
ment, the size and layout of the dwelling, household equipment,
husband's participation and evaluation of housework, weather, and
housework standards" (p. 452).

in a subsequent analysis of the same data, Olson (1981) examined
the links between housekeeping role performance and home care given to
children, considering four broad categories of child care: "positive"
interaction between caretaker and child; "negative" interaction;
responsiveness; and restrictiveness. According to Olson,

The variable of housework importance was related to three

child care variables: the frequency of positive interaction

between mother and child, maternal responsiveness, and the

degree of parental restrictiveness. The division of house-

hold labor, however, was not related to these child care

variables. Negative interaction between mother and child,

by contrast, was related to the division of household labor,

but not to housework importance. (p. 80)

To explain these findings, Olson (1981) suggested,

The key factor in predicting positive interaction between

mother and child, the immediacy of her responsiveness when in

the midst of household chores, and the degree of her restric-

tiveness is the defined importance of the child care role
relative to the housekeeping role. Although virtually all of

these respondents would agree that children are ultimately
more important than housework, they varied in the relative

78

importance assigned to housework, child care and other activ-
ities. (p. 80)

Piotrkowski (1979) also investigated the relationship between
housework and family interaction, with a special emphasis on the
emotional dynamics of family life. She used a case study approach,
collecting 70 hours of interview and observational data for an intact
family with three preschool children. Piotrkowski stated the overlap
or interface between the roles of housework and care of children not
only results in conceptual confusion for those who study family
dynamics, but also is a cause of role ambiguity for women.

Piotrkowski suggested the notion that disliking one's work (housework)
implies inadequate loving of one's children is an example of the
influence of overlapping roles on emotional life. She identified
additional causes of role strain, including the feeling of being tied
to the work both by obligations to young children and by dependence on
the wages earned by the husband-father; experiencing boredom with the
work as an assault on one's ideal self; feeling the work goes unvalued
(no pay or benefits) and unappreciated, internal concfiicts between
valuing the role and wanting to dissociate one's self from it, and the
additional frustration of feeling alone in these feelings, convinced
that others do not experience the same doubts and anxieties.

Based on the case study analysis, Piotrkowski (1979) postulated
that the role strain experienced by the wife-mother influences her
relationship with other family members, both in the content of the
interaction and in her emotional and interpersonal availability, so

that as strain from household work increases, emotional availability

79

and interpersonal availability decreases, and the conflicts between
mothers and children increase.

With respect to interaction content, Piotrkowski suggested that
when household work activities are primarily the responsibility of the
mother, a substantial percentage of her interactions with her family
members will be domestic and instrumental rather than social inter-
action. She noted this was in contrast to Parson's commonly accepted
theory that the mother-wife is the expressive leader in the family
while the father is the instrumental leader. Piotrkowski observed
that "such a view neglected the household work peformed in the home by
the wife-mother" (p. 215).

Sociological studies on the division of labor within households
have added important insights to understanding the nature of household
work and the dynamics of family interaction. Berheide, Berk and Berk
(i976) collected interview and observation data, as well as 24-hour
time use diaries, to assess (a) what household work consists of, (b)
the division of labor, and (c) women's attitudes about household work.
Data were gathered from women in 43 households. The sample included
single-parent families, women without children, and two-parent nuclear
families. Household work was defined as "any productive household
activities associated with either home 'maintenance' or family
'maintenance'" (p. 494). Findings indicated that husbands and
children contributed only minimally to household work, and women were
found to have a "high rate of participation in many of the tasks
stereotyped as the husband's job" (p. 502), including emptying the

garbage and household repairs.

80

Berheide, et al, observed that,

When women gene assisted in the household chores, what they

received was "help." Responsibility remained with the women,

implying not only direct supervision of the household work
process undertaken by others, and "quality control" over the
product, but also a more general managerial role carrying bur-

dens of its own. (pp. 503-504)

They also found, however, that this division of labor did not
seem to be troublesome for the women. Berheide, et al, stated that
"they do not feel especially pressured and rarely challenge the
household division of labor" (p. 514). in fact, attitudes about
household work in general seemed to be generally neutral. However,
Berheide, et al, noted that "a nontrivial number" (p. 510), about ten
percent, felt some tension about their conflicting roles. They
suggested the reason so few felt that tension was that women may have
developed strategies to enable them to deal "with a potentially
unhappy situation" (p. 511). Also, some may have accepted the boring
and tedious nature of the work because "the broader roles of wife,
mother, and homemaker were satisfying" (p. 511). Berheide, et al,
noted that most of their respondents felt a "strong emotional
attachment to the household members for whom they labored" (p. 511),
and made a tentative suggestion that altruism may be a factor "that
should not be neglected" (p. 511) as a possible explanation for the
overall satisfaction with household work.

Referring to inequities in the division of household labor,
Berheide, et al, (1976), recommended that since "it seems unlikely
that children and husbands will readily volunteer to undertake a

larger proportion of household tasks, some form of persuasion and/or

coercion may well be required if a more equitable division of labor is

81

going to materialize" (p. 514). They acknowledged that "should
conflict over the division of household labor become really heated" it
would be the women who would shoulder the burden of costs since "more
than men, their aspirations, self-image, and esteem may be linked to
the smooth functioning of a happy household" (p. 514).

Thrall (1978) also studied the division of labor in households,
utilizing data gathered from interviews with both husbands and wives
in 99 urban, middle class families with school-age children, and
examined the structural characteristics of role stereotypy and
housework done by children. Role stereotypy, as defined by Thrall, is
the normative expectation that one person is supposed to do a task,
and that another is then expected not to do it. The study identified
division of labor among 25 household tasks, nearly all of which were
tasks which serve the family as a whole rather than individual family
members. Findings were that even though there was variation from task
to task in the number of family members expected to do or not to do a
particular task, there was a "typical" pattern of division of labor
that corresponded to common ideas of man's work and women's work:

Wives do things inside the house, taking care of meals, gro-

ceries, laundry, and cleaning. The only three tasks wives are

expected not to do are taking trash to the dump, mowing the

lawn, and fixing things around the house. For husbands, there

is a more even balance in the number of tasks they are expected

to do and not to do. They are expected to do all the outdoor

chores and also such indoor tasks as fixing things and changing
light bulbs. Husbands are expected not to do cleaning or

laundry or help with meals. (p. 256)

Evidence was also found of sex-role stereotyping in the

assignment of tasks to children. Thrall stated that parent responses

82

on reasons for assigning tasks to children "made it clear...that the
sex of the child is a very important criterion" (p. 259).

With respect to the overall participation of children in
household work, Thrall reported that older children took part in more
of the tasks than did younger children, but did not take over these
tasks completely; parents still retained primary responsibility for
the work. Chores typically assigned to children were "things like
making their beds or picking up their rooms which are specific to the
child and which were not part of the family task performance records"
(p. 258). Not all families assigned chores to children. Nine percent
assigned none, 48 percent assigned an averaage of one or two specific
chores, and 43 percent assigned an average of three or more.
Attitudes about assigning chores to children also varied:

The most frequently mentioned single theme was that it is

important for children to do something, partly so they will

feel a part of the family but even more for training, so

they will know how to do various things when they grow up.

(p. 259)

Thrall added that, "implicit in this response is the idea that

the actual labor contribution of the children is secondary, perhaps
even negative" (p. 259). Another frequently given response was the
opposite attitude, that the work assigned to children should be a real
contribution, not made-up chores just for training. Thrall noted,
"Here the implication is that if there were no real way the children
could help, it would be better for them not to do any chores at all"
(p. 259). According to Thrall, children's work participation appeared
to be determined more by parental values than by any objective need

for the children's help.

r'E

fr

83

White and Brinkerhoff (1981) investigated parental reasons for
involving children in household work. Noting a scarcity of research
on children's involvement in housework, White and Brinkerhoff stated,

Almost universally, children's work has been a sideiight

rather than a focus of research and there is little accurate

descriptive data on children's work in the family. Nor has

there been any systematic consideration of the meaning of
children's work for family organization and interaction.

(p. 789)

To help fill that gap, White and Brinkerhoff (1981) questioned
parents and children in 790 Nebraska homes regarding "the meaning
families attach to children's work, i.e. their rationales and inter-
pretations" (p. 789). Their findings suggested five primary reasons

why parents assign work responsibilities to children:

Developmental: Doing chores builds character, develops responsi-
bility, helps children learn.

Reciprocal obligation: it is their duty to help the family;
working together is part of being a family; occasionally, more
bluntly, "they live here, don't they?"

Extrinsic: Parents need help.

Task learning: Children need to learn how to do these tasks.

Residual: All other reasons, most often that child has to earn

an allowance or needs something to do in order to keep busy.

(p. 793)

White and Brinkerhoff found that over seventy percent of parental
responses were in the developmental category, and suggested that the
frequency of response is indicative of "a normative or socially desir-
able response" (p. 794). Their survey indicated that in families
where children's work was assigned only a developmental meaning,

children worked the fewest hours (4.40 mean hours/week), while in

families where work was given an extrinsic interpretation, children

84

were likely to work the longest hours (4.86 mean hours/week) and were
also most likely to get paid for their work.

White and Brinkerhoff (1981) concluded that children's work
around the house is "an ubiquitous and value-laden feature of family
life" (p. 797). Although their research did not examine family
interaction in the context of housework, they speculated that "the
parent-child division of labor (chores) may create almost as much
family tension as does the husband-wife division of labor" (p. 797).
They recommended that, "given the centrality of chores for the
experiences of children and families, further research is necessary in
order to document the vital role of work and work methods in family
life and the consequences (developmental and otherwise) of children's
involvement in the family division of labor" (p. 797).

The findings of Thrall (1978) and Berheide, et ai (1976), as well
as White and Brinkerhoff (1981), indicate that the overall contribu-
tion of children to housework is minimal. Keniston (1977) has
indicated that historically, this was not the case. Referring to the
historical changes in family functions, Keniston stated that
especially in early agrarian families in America, children made
important contributions to household work activities and to the
economic well-being of the family.

The most important difference between these early American

families and our own is that early families constituted

economic units in which all members, from young children

on up, played important productive roles within the house-

hold. The prosperity of the whole family depended on how

well husband, wife, and children could manage and cultivate
the land.... Children were economic assets. (p. 13-14)

85

Keniston noted that today, in contrast, "most American adult
family members work for pay, while children rarely work at all"

(p. 14). Rapoport and Rapoport (1977) suggested reasons for
children's nonparticipation in housework may go beyond the economic.
They noted the trend today is to exempt chldren from participation in
household work and to focus instead on the "needs" of the child: "No
sacrifice is too great when it comes to one's children" (p. 219).
Rapoport and Rapoport indicated this is often done at the expense of
the needs of the parents. They also suggested parents may be doing
their children a disservice by attempting to provide "too ideal a
climate for development" (p. 208), promoting the child's "needs" at
the expense of values "of a humanistic, co-operation kind" (p. 213)
that might better equip them to contribute to the development of an
"equitable world" (p. 213). Would participation in housework
contribute to the development of those kinds of values? The review of
literature suggests there is little if any theory or research that
examines the relationship between participation in housework processes
and the development of values.

D. Smith (1977) has stated that sociological theory in general is
inadequate as a tool for evaluating human experience in any context
because it tends to detach researchers from the phenomena they study.
According to Smith, this distancing between knowers and known creates
a detachment with the result that social relations disappear:

integral to the relation thus formed is its organization to

suspend the particular subjectivlties of knower and known in

such a way that its character as a social relation disappears

...such that relations between actual people appear as rela-

tions of exchange between things, money, and commodities.
(p. 158)

86

Elaborating on this idea, Smith stated:

The conceptual procedures developed in sociology serve to
suspend the presence of an actor in her actions; what people
are doing, what they experience, what is happening to them,
become "roles," "norms," "systems," "behaviors." We have
learned a method of thinking which does away with the pre-
sence of the subjects in the phenomena which only subjects
can accomplish. (p. 159)

This detachment is apparent in the sociological studies relating
to housework cited in this review, both those based on institutional
and role theory. While the sociological research provides many clues
relative to the social relations that surround housework, insufficient
attention is given to ongoing interaction processes.

Lee (1959) provided some clues to the social relations integral
to family housework processes in an anthropological study. Writing
about the meaning work processes may have for families, Lee described
the "deep enjoyment" she experienced when, late one Christmas Eve, she
was pushing herself to complete a gift for her daughter and found
herself adding "an entirely unpremeditated and unnecessary edging of
embroidery" (p. 28). She recorded,

it was a feeling that had nothing to do with the pleasure the
work would give to my daughter on the morrow; it had nothing
to do with a sense of achievement, or of virtue in duty accom-
plished. And i knew that i had never liked to embroider.
There was no justification for my work, yet it was the source
of such a deep satisfaction, that the late hour and my fatigue
had ceased to exist for me.

At this moment of discovery, i knew that l was experiencing
what it meant to be a social being, not merely Dorothy Lee, an
individual; i knew that i had truly become a mother, a wife, a
neighbor, a teacher. i realized that some boundary had dis-
appeared, so that i was working in a social medium; that i was
not working for the future pleasure of a distant daughter, but
rather within a relationship unaffected by temporaiity of phys-
ical absence. What gave meaning to my work was the medium in
which i was working--the medium of love, in a broad sense. So
far, my rationalization and justification of my work had

87

obscured this meaning, had cut me off from my own social context.

it suddenly became clear to me that it did not matter whether i

was scrubbing the kitchen floor or darning stockings or zipping

up snowsuits; these all had meaning, not in themselves, but in
terms of the situation of which they were a part. They contained
social value because they implemented the value of the social

situation. (p. 28)

Lee elaborated that as work assumed a social value, there was a
disappearing of the boundary between the existence of a distinct self
as individual and self as an integral part of the family, to where "my
family and l were aspects of one whole" (p. 29).

Building on this idea, Lee described the ways in which work and
other activities in our culture build the boundaries of self as
separate from others in contrast with the ways the Tikopia build the
continuity of the individual with the social unit. For example,
caring for children among the Tikopia was not treated as a "task" but
as an expression of interdependence within the social unit. One
example she included was of a man, "called away from talk of men by
his wife to stay with the baby, (who) leaves the group with a sense of
dignity, not of annoyance and interruption" (p. 30).

According to Lee, work among the Tikopia is socially conceived
and structured, and because of this "work can take place without
coercion, without the incentive of reward or the fear of punishment,

without the spur of individual profit; because work as participation

is meaningful" (p. 38).

MaLsttEeanlsm
Both sociologists and economists are included among the ranks of
Marxist-Feminists, since Marxism constitutes both a sociology and an

approach to economics. However, because Marxist-Feminists differ to

88

some extent from mainstream sociologists and economists both in the
reasons for their interest in household production and in their
theoretical perspectives, the Marxist-Feminist literature is being
reviewed separately.

Marxists define production in capitalism as the creation of
surplus value. Much of the Marxist-Feminist literature on domestic
labor revolves around an on-going debate as to whether or not
housework constitutes productive labor in the Marxist sense of
production. A review of this debate is beyond the scope of this
research, except to note that there are divisions on the productive-
unproductive character of housework. (See Sokoloff, 1980, for a brief
review of this debate.) Literature for this review is taken primarily
from those who do consider housework as production.

The Marxist-Feminist concept of household production generally
includes both housework and child care, with housework being defined
as the reproduction of the labor force on a day-to-day basis and child
care as reproduction of the labor force on a generational basis
(Olson, 1979). Benston (1969) characterized housework as socially
necessary production and included child care in the concept of
household labor.

Zaretsky (1976) added a third dimension to the concept of house-
hold production in his analysis of the privatization of family life
under capitalism. He stated that the household labor of women today
includes not only the traditional tasks of production--housework and
child rearing, but also a "new responsibility for maintaining the-

emotional and psychological realm of personal relations" (p. 31).

89

Benston (1969) was among the first Marxist-Feminists to provide
an analysis of the interrelationships between household labor and the
subordination of women under capitalism. She noted that in
capitalism, men are structurally defined in terms of their relations
to the means of production. Since the domestic labor of women is a
pre-market type of production, it is generally excluded from commodity
production. According to Benston, women's responsibility for domestic
work became the structural basis for a definition of women in
capitalism and the material basis for their inferior status:

in a society in which money determines value, women are a

group who work outside the money economy. Their work is not

worth money, is therefore valueless, is therefore not even

real work. And women themselves, who do this valueless work,

can hardly be expected to be worth as much as men, who work

for money. (p. 4)

Benston used the concepts of exchange-value and use-value to
explain the difference in the relationship of the labor of men and of
women to the means of production. Products created for exchange in
the market have both use-value and exchange-value, while all products
created for direct consumption have only use value. According to
Benston, the latter would include all things produced in the home.

Regarding the value of housework in creation of surplus value,
Gardner (1975) argued that "domestic labour does not create value, on
the definition of value which Marx adOpted, but does nonetheless con-
tribute to surplus value by keeping down necessary labour, or the
value of labour power, to a level that is lower than the actual

subsistence level of the working class" (p. 58). in this way, house-

work benefits capitalists.

an

Sui

C8

1'0

pr

pr

WC

In

9O

Benston (1969) was among the first Marxist-Feminists to provide
an analysis of the interrelationships between household labor and the
subordination of women under capitalism. She noted that in
capitalism, men are structurally defined in terms of their relations
to the means of production. Since the domestic labor of women is a
pre-market type of production, it is generally excluded from commodity
production. According to Benston, women's responsibility for domestic
work became the structural basis for a definition of women in
capitalism and the material basis for their inferior status:

in a society in which money determines value, women are a

group who work outside the money economy. Their work is not

worth money, is therefore valueless, is therefore not even

real work. And women themselves, who do this valueless work,

can hardly be expected to be worth as much as men, who work

for money. (p. 4)

Benston used the concepts of exchange-value and use-value to
explain the difference in the relationship of the labor of men and of
women to the means of production. Products created for exchange in
the market have both use-value and exchange-value, while all products
created for direct consumption have only use value. According to
Benston, the latter would include all things produced in the home.

Regarding the value of housework in creation of surplus value,
Gardner (1975) argued that "domestic labour does not create value, on
the definition of value which Marx adopted, but does nonetheless con-
tribute to surplus value by keeping down necessary labour, or the
value of labour power, to a level that is lower than the actual

subsistence level of the working class" (p. 58). in this way, house-

work benefits capitalists.

91

Moiyneux (1979) referred to a pamphlet, Ih§_Majn_£n§m¥, by

Christine Delphy, stating that women's domestic labor benefits the
husband. Delphy stated that it is erroneous to view domestic labor as
valueless because,

(it) is not in any intrinsic sense different from the social-

ized form of domestic labour existing in the commodity sector.

The only difference is that the staff of laundrettes, restau-

rants and nurseries are paid for their labour, whereas the

housewife is not. Thus married women, in performing housework
for free, are being exploited by the beneficiaries of this

situation-their husbands. (Moiyneux, 1979, p. 5)

Delphy noted that whereas women in precapitaiist societies at least
received their subsistence in return for their domestic work, under
capitalism those who do wage work end up doing domestic work for free
because they are generally required to pay for their subsistance (e.g.
child care and laundry) from their own wages.

The foregoing references (Gardner, 1975, and Moiyneux, i979)
represent two positions among Marxists as to who benefits from women's
domestic labor: capitalists or husbands (i.e. patriarchy). Referring
to this debate, Glazer-Maibin (1976) stated there is general agreement
among radical analysts that "the housewife works for the maintenance
of capitalism rather than simply being a worker for her family"

(p. 919). Glazer-Malbin argued that the view that sees husbands and
children as the only beneficiaries of the domestic work of wives
supports the division between the sexes by posing the husband as
exploiter of his wife and further privatizes the family.

Zaretsky (1976) analyzed the devaluation of household labor from

an historical perspective. He stated that the rise of capitalism

isolated the famiy from socialized production and privatized the

92

family as it "created a historically new sphere of personal life among
the masses of people." Zaretsky continued:

The family now became the major space in society in which the
individual self could be valued 'for itself'.... While house-
wives and mothers continued their traditional tasks of pro-
duction--housework, child-rearing, etc.--their labour was
devalued through its isolation from the socialized production
of surplus value. in addition, housewives and mothers were
given new responsibility for maintaining the emotional and
psychological realm of personal relations. For women within
the family 'work' and 'life' were not separated but were col-
lapsed into one another. (p. 31)

According to Zaretsky (1976), as the family lost its core identity as
a productive unit,

material production within the family--the work of housewives

and mothers--was devalued since it was no longer seen as integral
to the production of commodities.... At the same time the family
acquired new functions as the realm of personal life--as the
primary institution in which the search for personal happiness,
love, and fulfilment takes place. (p. 65)

Moiyneux (1979) addressed the causes of the subordination of
women from yet another point of view, suggesting it is an over-
simplification to date oppressive domestic labor from the beginnings
of modern capitalism and, in particular, the decomposition of the
family as the main productive unit:

Even where the family was a unit of production there still

exists a distinction between domestic labour for domestic

consumption (e.g. food preparation, cleaning, washing, weaving,
sewing) and childrearing, and production for exchange--in the
market or by barter. This distinction is found in the least
technologically advanced societies; in other words, domestic

labour (even pnjxailsen domestic labour) and the sexual divi-

sion of labour pre-date capitalism, and would seem if not to

be universal, then to be very nearly so. (p. 15)

She added that this was not to say that the domestic sphere is
"eternal and immutable." But she noted that there are some aspects of

housework that have been and will continue to be resistant to change.

93

Moiyneux (i979) asserted that although the considerable body of
literature published in the decade since the first articles on the
domestic labor debate appeared has made an important contribution to
the debate on women's subordination, "the theoretical work so far pro-
duced on domestic labour has not adequately addressed the problems
which they identified" (p. 4). She included among the limitations
that have characterized these attempts to build theory, (a) a tendency
to economic reductionism, (b) a recourse to functionalist modes of
argument in constructing the relationships between capitalism and
domestic labor, and (c) a narrow focus on the Lane: performed in the
domestic sphere at the expense of theorizing the wider familial/
household context. According to Moiyneux,

This latter focus has led, among other things, to over-

emphasising the importance for the male wage worker of the

labour performed by the housewife, and to the virtual neglect

of that performed on behalf of the next generation of workers

in the work of rearing children (p. 4).

Moiyneux also stated that the focus on economism displaces
feminist issues from the debate: "Why houseneck is performed by
housexjxee and how it is linked into the structure of female subor-
dination" (p. 21). Moiyneux identified four forces which act to
maintain women in the home: (a) wage form, (b) the sexual division of
labor, (c) high unemployment and especially high female unemployment,
and (d) the premium placed by most societies on women's reproductive
. role. And she argued that the subordination of women
is mediated through (these) different levels of the social
formation and is inscribed within a number of distinct rela-
tions; it is not reducible to any simple causality and is

certainly not reducible just to the problem of domestic
labour (p. 27).

94

According to Moiyneux (1979), the measures required to and sub-
ordination of women must go beyond the position of urging women to
participate in employment and politics since that concentrates only on
"the external front, and generally ignores the need simultaneously to
restructure relations within the home on an equal basis" (p. 27). She
identified two measures she considered necessary for this equaliza-
tion. The first is the equalization of the domestic labor load, and
where there are children, the socialization of that dimension of
domestic labor. The second is "that women can work on equal terms to
men, with a resultant increase of employment opportunities for women
and the dissolution of female dependency on a privileged male wage"
(p. 27).

Gardner (1975) stated that the likelihood housework and child
care will be socialized depends on the value of domestic labor to
capitalists. According to Gardner, when capital is trying to hold
down the level of wages, as in times of economic crisis, domestic
labor performs a vital economic function and it would not be to the
advantage of capitalism to socialize housework or child care.

However, when capital needs additional wage workers or needs to expand
markets for workers' consumptions, as in times of economic expansion,
it might be to their advantage to socialize housework and child care.

Hartmann (1981) noted the "persistence and resilience of family
forms in the midst of general social change" (p. 366), and called
attention to the need for feminists "to consider what women's
interests may be in the maintenance of a type of family life that we

have often viewed as a primary source of women's oppression" (pp. 366-

95

367). Hartmann suggested that such an analysis would require placing
emphasis on the sources of conflict ulihln family life in addition to
the sources of conflict between family structures and various other
aspects of social life.

Hartmann identified two locations of conflict or struggle between
families and institutions: (1) tensions over the location of produc-
tion (housework), e.g. home prepared foods versus fast-food chains and
parental child care versus state-provided care outside the home; and
(2) conflicts over the redistribution of economic resources such as
paychecks, e.g. taxes as an example of the state making decisions for
the family on the redistribution of its resources.

in viewing the family as a locus of struggle, Hartmann explored
the material aspects of gender relationships within the family. She
examined two dimensions of household production that fall into this
category: (1) the nature of the work people do in the family, and
(2) their control over the products of their labor. Hartmann viewed
household production as encompassing the biological reproduction of
people and the shaping of gender, and their maintenance through house-
hold work. She stated that it is not possible to understand one type
of production (housework) without understanding the other (production
of people): "Together they create and recreate our existence"

(p. 373).

Hartmann (1981) identified two perspectives on the creation of
gender, one the biological sexuality mediated by social arrangements,
and the other the division of labor or the economic perspective.

Hartmann stated that the creation of dependence of women on men is

96

accomplished through institutionalized means which give men control
over women's labor power and provides the material base for
patriarchy. These institutionalized means include excluding women
from employment opportunities, denying abortions to women, and
monogamous, heterosexual marriage and the nuclear family arrangements
that structure the division of labor by gender.

Hartmann referred to time allocation studies as empirical
evidence that "the family (is) a primary arena where men exercise
their patriarchal power over women's labor" (p. 337). According to
Hartmann, these studies illustrate the lack of responsiveness of men's
housework time to women's increased wage work, and illustrate that it
is men who reap the benefits in the current housework arrangements.

in response to the queston: "if women are satisfied with things
the way they are, why does it matter?", Hartmann noted that an impor-
tant goal of the women's movement is "to document women's oppression
so that they may recognize exploitation when they experience it in
their daily lives" (p. 387). She identified some evidence that "the
gender struggle around housework may be bearing fruit" (p. 384). The
examples included increased purchases of commodities to replace home
production, e.g. fast-food takeouts, which she suggested provide
evidence of changing boundaries between home and market production.
She also suggested there is some evidence of an overall reduction in
time spent in housework in recent years which suggests an altering of
standards for housework.

With regard to the prospects for shifting responsibility for some

of the production that takes place within the home to men, Hartmann

states
reterr
women
more ‘
state-
labor
Conti
that

DVOCL

acti'

Ou‘

97

stated, "prospects...do not appear to be as good" (p. 389). She
referred to the example of the Soviet Union where 90 percent of the
women ages 20 through 40 are in the labor force, and women still spend
more than twice as much time on housework than do men. Hartmann
stated, "We are forced to conclude that the increase in women's wage
labor will not alene bring about any sharing of housework with men.
Continued struggle will be necessary" (p. 387). Hartmann indicated
that people have different interests in the future of household
production that vary according to their current relation to productive
activity outside the home:
Some women might perceive their interests to lie in getting
greater access to wages by mounting campaigns against employ-
ment and wage discrimination, others in maintaining as much
control as possible over the home production process by re-
sisting both capitalist inroads on household production and
male specifications of standards for it. Some women might
reduce housework by limiting childbirth. Some capitalists
might seek to expand both the market and mass production of
meal preparation if this area appears potentially profitable.
Other capitalists may simply need women's labor power in order
to expand production in any area or to cheapen labor power.

Or their interests might lie in having women in the home to
produce and rear the next generation of workers. (p. 390)

Hartmann (1981) noted that these widely ranging interests include
"counteracting requirements and goals" which means the possible

outcomes are "theoretically indeterminate" (p. 390).

W

Since its beginnings as a field of study, home economics has
promoted research and educational programs related to work in the
home. Home economists' initial interest in housework stemmed from a
concern for the well-being of overburdened and/or undertrained

homemakers caught in the social changes surrounding the industrial

98

revolution at the turn of the century. Education and research
emphasis was on discovering means for simplifying work processes by
developing skill in doing work and/or eliminating unnecessary work.

As the goals of efficiency gained momentum, a few professionals
attempted to focus more attention on the meaning changing work
processes might have for families, especially as they related to the
development of skills, attributes and the integration of groups (e.g.
Hunt, 1909, McKeever, 1913, and Warner, 1915). However, in both
education and research, skill development and efficiency, especially
in the use of time and energy, remained as the dominant concerns.
Later, interest developed in the economic value of housework, l.e. the
goods and services produced in the home, with economic value first
being considered in terms of household expenditures and later in terms
of production (Kyrk, 1933 and 1953, Reid, 1934, and Walker and Woods,
1976). Currently interest in the socialization and integration value
of housework processes has generally been subsumed by the emphasis on
the economic value of the products of housework.

Historically, home economics has placed more emphasis on
education than on research or the development of theory, and these
educational efforts have been aimed primarily towards women as
homemakers. in support of its educational thrust, home economics
research has emphasized identification of the managerial and physical
‘skiiis required to perform housework with greater efficiency and
satisfaction. Little research has been done by home economists
examining the interrelationships between the performance of housework

and the social relations in the family, or to consider possible

99

relationships between housework processes and the growth and develop-
ment of individuals and families. (Exceptions include the research of
Baker, 1970, Davey, 1971, Nelson, 1963 and 1980, Paolucci, 1977, and
A. Smith, 1968.) Consequently, contributions to the development of
theory that consider family interaction in the housework context have
been limited.

Home economics research, especially that contained in the area of
family economics and management, has included the development of time-
use measures as a method for quantifying the maintenance component of
household production. This research was given impetus by the work of
Kyrk and Reid in the 1930's through 1950's, and later by Walker in the
1960's and 1970's. Following an economic paradigm, these measures
attempt to distinguish between production and consumption activities,
with production defined as the goods and services produced in the home
that have market equivalents. Time-use measures emphasize the more
easily observable and quantifiable dimensions of housework, and they

either ignore or consider as "secondary" the qualitative dimensions of

household production such as nurturing and socializing of family
members which are embedded in the work processes. Present time-use
measures of household production appear to be inadequate for measuring
these qualitative outputs of household work, and may, as a result, be
contributing to their "invisibility," thus making it more difficult to
derive an accurate picture of the overall contribution of the house-
hold either to economic or social well-being. Time-use measures also

appear to be inadequate as a means for providing insights into the

ac

100

actual dynamics of housework or the social relations that surround
housework.

While acknowledging the need for measures of household
production, the inability of household production measures to account
for the qualitative (human resource) outputs of housework processes
must be carefully examined. An examination of the ways in which the
time-use data are used indicates a tendency to assume that what is
measured is the ultimate output of the household, and that what has
not been measured either does not exist or does not matter. This line
of thinking is apparent in the theoretical formulations related to
time allocation in households developed by mainstream economists, and
especially by economists in the "new home economics" (e.g. Becker,
1974 and 1976, and Ferber and Birnbaum, 1977).

Two assumptions basic to Becker's (i976) theory of time
allocation in households are (1) that households will allocate time
between market work and housework so as to maximize family income, and
(2) that market equivalents are adequate substitutes for home produced
goods and services. in other words, according to Becker's theory, if
what a woman could earn in the market place would have more economic
value to the household than the economic value of her housework
services, then the household would behave rationally by substituting
either other family member's time or market equivalent products for
the housewife's time.

Feber and Birnbaum (1977) took issue with the first assumption
arguing that it is tradition, rather than economic rationality, that

determines the allocation of time in households. They indicated

101

empirical research suggests households do not, in fact, allocate their
time in order to maximize income but tend to follow traditional time
allocation patterns. Brown (1982) took issue with Becker's second
assumption, that market equivalents are adequate substitutes for home
produced goods and services. She noted there is very little substitu-
tion made by households of market goods for housewife's time, and
suggested that the noneconomic components of home produced goods and
services, e.g. love, support and nurturing, make them noncomparable
with the supposed market equivalents.

Housework enters into sociological theory and research as the
labor of women in the occupation of housewife (institutional
perspective), and as a dimension of the role of housewife (role
theory). Research and theory in the instutional approach is concerned
with comparison of the status of the occupation of housewife with
occupations in the paid labor force. Social stratification theory
indicates that women are in a disadvantaged position both with respect
to socioeconomic status and decision power.

Housework has traditionally been excluded from socioeconomic
rankings because it is not paid work. According to Acker, present
social stratification theory is not adequate for explaining the
disadvantaged position of women in the world of paid work or in the
household. An effort in current theoretical development is to
consider how housework as a component of women's lives has contributed
to the disadvantaged position of women in the paid work sphere. The

study of housework from an institutional perspective does not consider

 

e1

tC

ho

ST

8X

'nC

me

Ci

102

either family interaction or the contribution of housework processes
to family well-being.

Research based on role theory has examined the division of labor
in households in order to identify components of family roles;
housework is also considered as a factor in role satisfaction and role
strain. One of the purposes of research on family roles has been to
examine the impact of women's work outside the home on home-related
work, and vice versa. Role theory divides activities of family
members into "roles," with the activities of the housewife typically
dichotomized into child care and housework roles. These two roles
have been viewed as contradictory (e.g. Olson, 1979) and as a source
of stress for women (e.g. Piotrkowski, 1979). Role research has also
included the comparison of housework and paid labor as sources of
satisfaction (e.g. Ferree, 1976, and Wright, 1978).

Marxist-Feminists share with home economists and mainstream
economists an understanding of household labor as production. The
emphasis in Marxist-Feminist theory and research has been on the
organization and exploitation of labor, and especially on the
exploitation and oppression of women as domestic workers. As with
institutional sociologists, a major concern of Marxist-Feminists is
with status and power hierarchies in the labor market. The basis of
women's secondary status has been identified as primarily economic
(e.g. Benston, 1969), and rooted in a capitalistic and patriarchal

system of social relationships (Hartmann, 1981, and Sokoloff, 1980).

103

(212.111.9113

in each of the fields of study considered in the Review of
Literature, the pattern for research and analysis of housework has
been to begin from a position within a particular conceptual
framework, one that has developed from a particular paradigm. The
selected framework determines what is looked for and how findings are
interpreted, what should be placed in the forefront and what should be
considered as secondary. However, as noted by Skoinick (1973), "a
paradigm also acts like a blinder." Skoinick notes that "a scientist,
for example, when immersed in a particular paradigm, will reject or
misperceive facts that cannot be fitted into the paradigm" (p. 29).

The review of literature for this research indicated that an
economic paradigm has dominated in the development of research and
theory related to housework. Home economics and economics have
approached the study of housework almost exclusively from an economic
perspective. The influence of an economic paradigm is clearly evident

in the production/consumption dichotomy used to describe household

work, and in time-use studies where the purpose is to determine the
economic worth of household production outputs. Outputs with market
equivalents are considered "primary" while nurturing and socialization
of family members are ignored or labeled as "secondary." While the
production/consumption dichotomy may make an important contribution to
the understanding of the nature of housework, when one considers the
full context of family interaction, these categories may be limiting.
The influence of an economic paradigm is also apparent in the

conceputal frameworks used for the study of housework in sociology and

 

 

In

1'6

CC

SU

104

Marxist-Feminism. Sociology views housework as labor, an occupation
to be compared with labor in the paid labor force, and Marxist-
Feminism views housework as capital and as an occupation. While both
consider housework as necessary labor, required for the maintenance of
the family, at the same time it is seen as a burden, and one which men
as well as women should help bear. Recommendations for reallocating
the work include the socialization of housework (Marxist-Feminism),
substituting market equivalents for home produced goods and services,
and changing the division of labor in households so men carry an equal
share of housework responsibilities.

When housework is viewed primarily from an economic perspective,
the disadvantaged position of women compared to men is readily
apparent, and the analyses often reflect a feeling of anger over the
observed inequalities. While this anger is more apparent in the
writing of Marxist-Feminists than home economists, for example, the
review of literature indicated many who research housework share some
common concerns about the relationship between housework and women's
subordination. The role of housewife typically emerges as a high-risk
occupation with few if any compensations for the economic losses.

(See Ferber and Birnbaum, 1981, and Bergmann, 1981, for examples of
this perspective.)

Role theory also reflects the influence of an economic paradigm.
According to D. Smith (1977), role theory creates a detachment between
the knower from the known and encourages the analysis of lived
experiences or the study of natural phenomena from a rational,

economic approach. The detachment is created through conceptual

105

procedures which serve to "suspend the presence of an actor in her
actions," and what people do and experience become "roles," "norms,"
"systems," "behaviors" (p. 159). As expressed by Smith, "We have
learned a method of thinking which does away with the presence of
subjects in the phenomena which only subjects can accomplish"
(p. 159). Smith stated,

integral to the relation thus formed is its organization

to suspend the particular subjectivities of knower and

known in such a way that its character as a social relation

disappears--such that relations between actual people appear

as relations of exchange between things, money, and
commodities. (p. 158)

Smith (1977) elaborated on this idea in considering the problem
women experience as they use existing frameworks as a means to come to
an understanding of their own experiences. Where experience and the
conceptual framework do not coincide, Smith indicated,

We have learned to discard our experienced worlds as a

source of concerns, information, and understandings of the

actualities of the social world and to confine and focus our

"insights" within the conceptual frameworks and relevances

given in the discipline. Should we think otherwise or experi-

ence the world in different ways, with edges or horizons

passing beyond what could be conceptualized in the established

forms, we have learned to practice a discipline which disattends

them or to find some way of making them over so that they will

fit. (p. 158)

Dreyfus (1981) also noted that theory detaches people from the
experiences of living by removing the segments to be studied from
their everyday context then replacing them in a new configuration that
is assumed to create the original whole, and in the process contri-
butes to nihilism or loss of meaning in life. According to Dreyfus,

in the decontextualizing and reassembling process,

The everyday context is left behind as confused and un-
important. it gets bracketed out in the name of obtaining

Dr

tr

ar

106

decontextualized elements; then these elements, whether they

be ideas or atoms or whatever you like, are recontextualized

into a new whole. Theory thus decontextualizes its subject in

order to recontextualize it, but whereas the old context was
implicit and open, the new context is explicit and complete--
publicly shared commitments and the everyday perceptual world

are replaced by an abstract system of ideas. (p. 511)

Dreyfus emphasized that this reconstituted "whole" detaches persons
from life, from their connectedness with the processes of living.

The potential problems of using role theory (e.g. Smith, 1977)
and theory in general (e.g. Dreyfus, 1981) for the analysis of
phenomena are probably nowhere more apparent than in the applications
of theory to the analysis of housework. Housework is lifted from the
context of family life, and at the same time family "roles" are
separated out so they can be analyzed free of the context in which
they are lived. in the process, some of the meaning these processes
may have for families becomes obscured.

What are the implications for theory and research related to
housework? What needs to be considered in order to understand house-
work as a life experience, or what needs to be considered that is not
seen from the perspective of existing theoretical frameworks?
Conceptual frameworks that view housework only in terms of its main-
tenance products appear to be inadequate for examining the richness of
housework processes as context for family life. For example, they
appear to be inadequate for evaluating how the way the family
organizes for the performance of housework is related to existing
patterns of social relationships within the family, or how the

structuring of housework processes influences family interaction.

Present theory also appears to be inadequate for considering the

1'95

17)

 

107

implications of housework processes and the social relations that
surround them for the development of human skills and attributes and
for the integration of family members.

The analysis of housework from an economic perspective has
resulted in a rather myopic view of work in the home. What is needed
is a view of work in the home from the perspective of the partici-
pants, from the perspective of those for whom housework is part of the
daily experience of living. This would include all members of a
household, whether directly or indirectly involved in the housework
processes. How do family members perceive housework? How is family
interaction shaped by the doing of housework? How is family inter-
action in the context of housework related to the development of
people and relationships?

The review of literature has identified a need to develop new
theory that will more adequately encompass the daily experience of
housework. it is the purpose of this research, through the develop-

ment of grounded theory, to contribute toward satisfying that need.

Slim

hous

aha
may
COD:

bet

 

As has been indicated through the review of literature and the
summary of the various frameworks currently used for the analysis of
housework, an area that is consistently neglected in these frameworks
is knowledge of what is occurring in the interaction processes that are
integral to the performance of housework. Two dimensions of the social
relations that surround housework are of interest for this analysis:
(1) the way the household is organized for the performance of
housework, and (2) family interaction in the context of housework.

The analysis of the data will examine how housework was perceived
and the way housework processes were structured in the household. The
analysis will also consider ways in which the structure of housework
may be related to family interaction. Finally, the analysis will
consider how family interaction patterns in the housework context may
be related to the development of human attributes and skills.

in this presentation of the reseach findings, the researcher has
drawn more heavily from observations made in the Allen household than
_ in the Brice household for examples to illustrate the various
interaction patterns. Reasons for this preference are that, as
indicated in Chapter 2, observation data from the Allen family were

used as the primary data source, and the researcher spent considerably

108

C. g-r

171i

 

109

more time observing family interaction in the Allen household. Data
from the Brice family were used to aid in revising and checking
indications of interaction patterns observed in the Allen household.
Examples drawn from observations made in the Brice household have been
included where it was felt they might add additional insights into

family interaction processes.

W

The ways in which family members perceive the relative importance
of housework, or the ways in which housework is regarded, may influence
the way the household is organized for the performance of housework.
For example, if either spouse regards housework as the exclusive domain
of the wife, or as a primary dimension of her family role, the
allocation of tasks in the household will likely be different than it
would if participation in housework is regarded as a means for
socializing children. Or if housework is regarded as a manifestation
of the subordinated position of women, that perception may also
influence the way a family chooses to structure housework processes.

indications of the way housework was regarded in the Allen and
Brice households were identified through analysis of ethnographic
interviews and the observation data.

Mr. and Mrs. Allen seemed to interpret the importance of housework
primarily in terms of its contribution to other family processes rather
than in terms of its worth in providing goods and services necessary
for the maintenance of the household. This is not to say that the
goods and services produced through housework processes were not

important to the family. But the emphasis in housework processes

 

110

appeared to be on the interaction processes integral to housework and
the developmental value of participation in housework at least as much
if not more than on the more tangible maintenance products of
housework.

The distinction between the emphasis on the process for doing
housework as compared to the products of housework is illustrated in
the following dialogue which was recorded during a meeting with Mr. and
Mrs. Alien discussing their review of a preliminary draft of the
analysis. The analysis draft had contained a reference to Mr. Allen's
expression of satisfaction as he was removing freshly baked rolls from
the oven. in the review session, Mr. Allen expressed the feeling that
the description of some of the incidents was "like looking in the
window for a minute and then going on." When Mr. Allen was asked to
elaborate on what he meant, he stated the example that concerned him
most was one "about me and the bread."

Researcher: Do you mean the incident where you were taking
the bread from the oven?

Mr. Alien: Yes. Just take that one experience. it's the
whole experience of making bread, of the father making bread for

the family in the kitchen, with the kids helping, giving them a

positive experience, mixing, getting dirty or whatever, but they

get to help. Or making rolls. You know, that inter-action.
Doing it.

Researcher: So it wasn't that what i said was inaccurate,
it just wasn't enough.

Mr. Allen: That's right; it's just a trickle. i enjoy
making the rolls, making them look good, watching them rise. But
i enjoy the whole process, not just what comes out of the oven.
(August, 1981)

Mr. and Mrs. Allen said they felt housework was important because
it provided a means for teaching children skills and attributes they
would need to be successful adults. Mrs. Allen said they felt a

responsibility to raise the children to be "productive members of

society 1
ot the fill
hard nor
chi
knc
be
Mr!
rather,
investn
teachir
perenti

worthwl

That
01 ii
hag.
hile
iEeI
felt

Fete

111

society instead of just making it." She expressed the belief that one
of the most important things they could teach their children was "to be
hard workers."

Mrs. Allen: You know, of all the things you can teach your
children (one of the most important) is to be hard workers and to
know how to motivate themselves to do a job, instead of having to
be motivated. (August, 1981)

Mrs. Allen noted, however, that the teaching process was not easy;
rather, it required the commitment of the parents and a considerable
investment of time and energy. in fact, Mrs. Allen identified this
teaching and motivating process as a primary source of pressure in
parenting. However, she said she considered the teaching process
worthwhile in spite of those pressures:

Mrs. Allen: it's easier just to let your kids go at 10:00 in
the morning and run all day long. But then again when you get old
you'd be frustrated because you would have taught them nothing.
(August, 1981)
in other words, even though it required more effort on the part of

the parents to include children in housework processes, they considered
it worth the effort because of the benefits they felt would accrue
through participation in housework.

in addition to learning to be "good workers," Mr. Alien indicated
that housework was important because it contributed to the development
of feelings of personal worth, that self esteem developed when children
had the opportunity to complete something successfully every day. Mr.
Allen stated, "Doing something constructive like housework makes you
feel good about yourself." He indicated that too few children ever

felt the satisfaction that can come from completing a job. Mr. Allen

referred to an incident where Nancy and Cristine had worked together to

cl

8?).

 

112

clean the range. When they were finished, Nancy had observed, "1 sure
enjoy doing a good job. Won't mother be proud?" Mr. Allen said Nancy
later reported, "Mommy really liked the stove. She said it looked
nice." Mr. Allen added, "That result relaxes you and brings out the
good in you. it gives the whole mood of wanting to improve in other
areas, too." (August, 1981) Mr. and Mrs. Allen said housework was
important because it contributed to feelings of being part of the
family. The following indicates one way they felt housework
contributed to the feeling of belonging.

Mr. Allen: For the last few months i've been giving the
children assignments to do every Saturday morning, and they've
loved it. They love it! They want to come and get them checked
off after they're just beautifully done. They want me to come
and sign my name and check it off and inspect it, and then they
go on to the next task. And i give them really good tasks.

Mrs. Allen: Yes, in fact, Mark's asked for one.

Mr. Allen: Ya, he wanted some too. They want them. They
want those responsibilities.

Mrs. Allen: 1 think part of it is it makes them feel that
they are part of the family, they are contributing and essential
to the family. (August, 1981)

Group particpation in housework was important because it created
opportunities for enjoyable social experiences, as the following
indicates.

Mrs. Allen: 1 mean, we painted the fence today, which is
the biggest pain in the neck (laughs), but we really had a good
time together, and every single kid painted on it. (August, 1981)
Mr. Allen, referring to the same family activity, stressed that

both the integrative and developmental functions of shared
participation in housework were important:

Mr. Allen: The value of an activity is more than just the
social activity. it's like the image you see of yourself when you

see a job well done. it builds the image of the family, too. it
builds it in the same way the hot rolls do. (August, 1981)

hOl

1hr

 

113

The emphasis Mr. and Mrs. Allen placed on doing activities
together as a family and creating the image of "family" could be seen
in the way housework as well as other activities were structured in the
household. The following excerpt from the observation data illustrates
the emphasis placed on eating meals together:

3:30 p.m.
Mrs. Allen had a play rehearsal at 4:00 p.m. She had dinner
prepared and was trying to get the family together so they could

ea t-.

Mr. Allen: Let the little boys sleep. (They were taking
their afternoon naps.)

Mr. Alien suggested the boys could eat later and Mrs. Allen
could go to her practice.

Mrs. Alien: My whole purpose is to have us eat together.

(May 16, 1980)

Analysis of the observation data for the Brice family indicate
they shared at least to some degree the view that housework processes
were important because of the developmental and integrative
possibilities. Both Mr. and Mrs. Brice invested considerable amounts
of time and energy in teaching their children work skills as well as
teaching them to work together. in addition, the importance of
developing work skills and helping each other was occasionally
verbalized. Mr. Brice spoke of the need for young people to learn to
work, to be productive, an attribute they felt should be learned in the
home (March 13, 1981). in a family discussion of ways they could
increase family harmony, helping each other with household tasks was
one means that was identified (March 9, 1981).

The balance of the analysis will describe the way in which
housework was structured in the Allen and Brice households, ways that

appeared to influence the growth and development of individual family

members as well as integration of the family.

ES

hou

TM

01

114

W

The importance the Allen and Brice families placed on housework as
a socialization tool was reflected in the way they chose to structure
housework processes in the household.

Two dimensions of structure will be considered in the analysis.
The first dimension relates to the structure of the work itself, or the
structural characteristics of housework that suit it as a context for
family interaction. Examples of these structural characteristics
include what tasks were done, the divisibility of tasks into subtasks,
range in difficulty and complexity of tasks, and the repetitive nature
of housework. The second dimension is the way the family structures or
organizes the doing of housework, i.e. who does the work, is it done

alone or with others, when is it done and how frequently is it done.

W

One of the distinctive characteristics of housework processes in
the Allen household was their complexity. To identify complexity the
data were examined for frequency of activities, number of persons
involved in the activity, and the number of activities occurring
simultaneously. Three structural characteristics readily apparant from
the analysis of the observation data were, first, that housework was a
major daily activity; second, participants were rarely alone as they
'worked; and third, housework was seldom if ever the only activity
occurring at a given time. Whenever housework was being done
participants were also interacting with others, teaching and learning

work and interpersonal skills.

that

and

and

tasI

Chi

Bri

115

The following example is illustrative of the amount of activity
that was typically in progress at a given time. On one particular
morning (Thursday, May 15, 1980) Mrs. Allen was building a shadow box
and at the same time giving assignments to the children, supervising
and encouraging them in their work, giving directions on how to do a
task, arbitratlng a conflict between Mark and Greg, and helping the
children make the necessary preparations for school. Concurrently,
Brian was washing dishes, Nancy and Cristina were cleaning downstairs,
then getting their breakfast, and preparing to leave for school.
Throughout this time period the children were talking with each other
as well as with their mother. in fact, it was quite impossible to keep
up with all of the interaction. Not only were family members
interacting while they were doing housework, but in addition several
housework tasks were often in progress at the same time. Housework
tasks were not done one by one as isolated entities but many tasks were
done simultaneously and integrated within a dynamic pattern of family

living.

WW
Both the Allen and Brice families participated in a wide range of

housework activities. Both families produced many of the goods and
services needed for the maintenance of the household. For example, it
appeared that most meals were prepared from "scratch" rather than using
'convenience foods or eating meals out. Other kinds of goods produced
in these households included building cabinets and shelves, making
decorative items for the home, construction of clothing, and growing

and preserving fruits and vegetables for their own use. Neither family

USES

house

the r

and .

whic

work

illOi’E

the

tori

HOS

Fer

116

used commercial housecleaning services but did all their own
housecleaning. Each family also did much of the repair work needed for
the maintenance of the household including minor repairs on automobiles
and bicycles. in addition, both the Allen and Brice homes had yards
which required maintenance. The physical care of children was also a
work activity in each household. Preschool children generally require
more care from other family members than do older children, and since
the Allen family had four pre-school children, child care was a major
work activity in their household. in the Brice household child care
was a less frequent activity since there was only one pre-school child.
For purposes of this research, all home production and maintenance
activities as well as the physical care of children were considered

housework.

BMW

A structural characteristic of housework observed in each
household was that some of the production and maintenance activities
were done on a daily basis. Others, of course, were done less
frequently, such as weekly or seasonally. in addition many of those
daily activities occurred in an observable sequence, i.e. a daily
routine. While there was also considerable variation in each day's
activities, nevertheless there appeared to be a daily pattern around
which other family activities were structured. The following describes
the general daily pattern of activities in the Allen household.

A typical weekday in the Allen household began between 6:30 and
7:00 a.m. when hr. and Mrs. Allen would awaken and one of them, usually

Mrs. Alien, would awaken the school-age children. Mr. Allen would

Ore:

pre

who

01’ h

trc

bet

(101

he

01’

th

fr

Ci

n:

117

dress for work while Mrs. Alien encouraged the children along as they
prepared for school. There did not seem to be a consistent pattern for
who would prepare breakfast; some days Mrs. Allen prepared breakfast,
other days Mr. Allen; in either case there was usually some assistance
from the children. The family generally ate breakfast together.

The children were expected to help straighten or clean the house
before they left for school. The task of washing dishes was usually
done by one of the three older children, with the persons not washing
helping with other parts of the meal clean-up and/or straightening
other areas in the house. Mrs. Alien often assisted the children with
their morning tasks. Some mornings while the children were busy with
their work, Mrs. Allen would drive Mr. Allen to work. The three older
children left for school at 9 a.m. After they left, Mrs. Allen helped
the three little boys get dressed if they had not dressed earlier.

Mrs. Allen's daytime activities were varied. One day each week
she took her turn providing a two-hour "day nursery" for preschool
children in the neighborhood. Sometimes she sewed children's clothing
for their home business. She also ran errands, attended a workshop,
and did volunteer work in the community. The little boys usually
played at home or at a neighbor's home, attended the "day nursery"
three mornings a week, and Greg and Alison usually took one or more
naps during the day. The children generally ate lunch around noon, and
, Mrs. Allen usually did not sit down to eat with the boys.

Depending on his school and work schedule, Mr. Allen was sometimes
at home when the children began arriving from school in the afternoon,

which was usually about 3:30 p.m. The family ate dinner early, usually

samth
were 5:
dining
their

dinner
usuall
graine

960911

rehea
a Pit
Iatcl
acth
Even
was

usue

9.0.

the
app
ile
Our
Da'
(in
re

1h

118

sometime between 4:00 and 5:30 p.m., depending on what other activities
were scheduled, and the family all ate together sitting around the
dining table. The children sometimes played during the time between
their arrival from school and meal time, and sometimes helped with
dinner preparations. Preparation and cleanup of the evening meal was
usually a group effort, which, it should be noted, encompassed a fine-
grained division of labor including the organization and direction of
people and activities.

Evening activities were varied. Mrs. Allen often attended a play
rehearsal in the evening; one evening both Mr. and Mrs. Allen attended
a PTA activity. Some evenings the family played together, and/or
watched television, and housework was commonly interspersed with these
activities. One regularly scheduled evening activity was a Family Home
Evening, a more structured teaching and/or recreation activity which
was held each Monday evening. Bedtime for the younger children was
usually around 8:00 p.m. and the older children went to bed around 9:00
p.m.

As the foregoing suggests, although there was some variation in
the timing and context of each day's activities, nevertheless there
appeared to be a rather steady core pattern around which the more
flexible daily activities revolved. This became especially apparent
during one morning (Thursday, May 15, 1980) when some of those core
.patterns had been disrupted. Mrs. Alien had been very busy the
previous several days with preparations for a PTA program and
rehearsals for a church play, and she had been away from the home more

than usual. The researcher arrived at the Alien home at 8:30 a.m., and

5805

Has

dire

she

'0

Al

01

(k

119

sensed there was some confusion in the morning activities. Mrs. Allen
was making a shadow box for Brian to give to a teacher who was
directing a play in which Brian had the lead role. Mrs. Allen
explained she had been planning to attend a PTA seminar that day, but
had now decided not to. She added that her husband would disown her if
she didn't get their house in order. Mr. Allen had already left for
work. Mark and Greg were standing at chairs by the table where Mrs.
Allen was working and they were pushing, shoving and crying at each
other to get a better vantage point. Nancy and Cristine were
downstairs cleaning their bedroom and the family room. The researcher
had not observed where Brian was until Mrs. Alien issued a firm and
irritated command: "Brian, 1 want the dishes done; i want the floor
clean; 1 want the walls done." Brian responded with a plantive, "The
dishes?" Apparently it was not his turn, but he was soon in the
kitchen washing dishes and humming to himself while he worked.
Breakfast that day was a haphazard affair. At 9:05 Cristine went
downstairs to tell Nancy, "Nancy, if you want breakfast you have to go
get some." They both went upstairs, and were looking for something to
eat. Mrs. Allen suggested, "Have some applesauce. Have an ice cream
cone." Cristine, a bit incredulous, put a chair next to the
refrigerator and climbed up to get the cones, "Do you mean it, Mom?"
To which Mrs. Allen responded, "i don't care. There are no cones, just
have ice cream." And they did. Brian, Nancy and Cristine were 15
minutes late leaving for school. Mrs. Allen reminded them before they

left to clean their "groady" teeth.

 

 

cay

10C

80C

cha

120

After the children left for school, Mrs. Allen observed, "1 hate
daylight savings time. We usually get up early and have breakfast
together. This way no one gets up until 8:00. Gary's gone to work,
and i hate to fix breakfast anyway." That week was the first after the
change from standard time to daylight savings, and it was apparently
not easy to make the adjustment in the morning routine. Maintaining
some routine and a sense of order was apparently an important goal for
Mrs. Allen. She said it was important to her to have a clean house so
she always tried to make certain it was orderly before the children
left for school. She observed that it had taken them a few years to
develop a system to keep the house in order. (May 7, 1980)

The daily routine of family activities has significance for family
interaction because it determines when and how frequently the family
comes together and what they do when they are together. As can be seen
from the above description of the Allen family's daily routine,
housework was an activity that brought the family together frequently.
The children engaged in housework before school as well as after
school. Except for occasional moments in the evening when Mr. and/or
Mrs. Allen would play with the children or go for a walk, there were
few times during the course of the observation study when either Mr. or
Mrs. Allen was not doing housework. One evening at 9:00 p.m., for
example, when the family was watching a television program, both the
'washer and dryer were running, Mr. Allen was folding clothes, and Mrs.
Allen was in and out of the room doing various tasks, among them spot-

mopping the kitchen floor. (May 16, 1980)

in

0C

re

re

 

121

The repetitive, routine nature of housework also had significance
from a developmental perspective. Participation in housework provided
opportunities for skill development. Because housework must be done
repeatedly it makes it possible for children to practice skills
regularly. At the same time, the repetitive and routine nature of
housework may also be a source of boredom or monotony and may at times

be a constraint to development of human resources.

When:

Another major structural characteristic of housework in the Allen
and Brice households was that all family members from 1-1/2 years of
age and older did housework. it was common in the Allen and Brice
households to divide tasks into smaller units so that more than one
person could be working at the same job at the same time. For example,
meal preparation was divided into a variety of subtasks such as the
planning of what to eat, deciding how to prepare the food, teaching
food-preparation skills, preparing the food, setting the table and
serving the food. Housecieaning was also divided into smaller subtasks
that included picking up, dusting, vacuuming, washing windows, putting
items away, and straightening or rearranging furniture.

The subtasks of housework described above varied in difficulty and
complexity from the very simple to more difficult and complex.
‘Examples of simple tasks included providing a drink of water, pushing
chairs around the table after a meal, and running errands to retrieve
an item for a parent or sibling. More complex tasks included the

planning and preparation of meals and the coordination of the efforts

off

pos

per

hm

tht

OD

tc

tr

122

of family members, tasks where multiple factors needed to be considered
in making decisions about what to do and how to do it.

The range of complexity and difficulty of the tasks made it
possible for each family member, from very young child to adult, to
participate and find challenges in the work processes. in the Allen
household it was not unusual for each individual, with the exception of
the baby, to make some contribution to the preparation of a meal. At
any given mealtime, one might observe Greg carrying plates or cutlery
to the table, Mark running an errand to the basement to get a jar of
food, Nathan putting the chairs around the table, and Cristina, Nancy,
Brian and Mr. and Mrs. Alien each having some part in the preparation
or clean-up of the meal. Joint effort was also the characteristic
pattern for housecleaning. Even tasks that might have been done by one
person often involved participation of more than one individual. For
example, changing the baby's diaper might be regarded as a one-person
job, but in the Allen household a second person was often asked to get
the diaper and bring it to the person who was changing the diaper, and
a third person might be asked to carry the soiled diaper to the diaper

pail.

W

The interaction patterns observed while the Allen family did
_housework suggest that teaching and motivating children to do work were
major and complex components of the housework processes. As parents
taught children to do housework they not only provided information on
how to do work but also provided support and motivation to encourage

the children in their work efforts. in other words, involving children

123

in housework processes required considerable time and effort on the
part of parents. Parents were not the only family members involved in
the teaching processes, however. Children also taught and learned from
each other and parents also learned from their children as they
interacted in the housework context. While the emphasis in this
analysis is on the teaching and motivating behaviors observed in the
parents, brief attention will also be given to related interaction
behaviors observed between siblings and those where children appeared
to be teaching parents.

Teaching and motivating often appeared to be done simultaneously.
However, there were interaction behaviors that appeared to be directed
more towards providing motivation to do work than teaching how to do
work. Examples of teaching behaviors will be presented first, followed
by examples of activity patterns that appeared to be oriented primarily
towards motivating children to do work.

The observation data suggest children begin showing an interest in
helping with housework at a very early age. The following example is
illustrative.

7:45 a.m.
Mrs. Allen reminded the older children they needed to

hurry to get their work completed before leaving for school.

Nancy asked whose turn it was to wash dishes, and Greg (1-1/2

years old) offered, "1 will help you wash dishes." (May 5,

1980)

This early interest in housework may have grown from a desire to
'be with other family members or to model the behavior of parents and/or
siblings more than from an interest in housework per se. in any case,

the data suggest that when a child's early interest in helping with

housework is reinforced through positive interaction with other family

124

members, the child may also learn to enjoy doing the task. Negative
interaction, on the other hand, may be associated with a dislike for
the task. This pattern is illustrated in the following statement where
Beth Brice recalled when she was a little girl and washed dishes with
Mrs Brice.

4:00 p.m.

Beth: i remember being really little and asking if i

could wash the dishes. My brothers would laugh at me because

i liked it, and then i didn't like it any more. i didn't want

to do it for them, but i liked to do them. And i liked to do

it with Mom. i guess that is why i liked to do them, because

i liked to help Mom and she liked me to do them. (March 24,

1981)

Mr. and Mrs. Allen said they began teaching their children to
particpate in housework when the children first began showing an
interest in helping, which they said was usually around 1-1/2 to 2
years of age. The primary method they used to teach the children to do
housework was to work with them, teaching both by example and direct
instruction. it was especially common for the parents to work with the
very young children, providing encouragement and expressing confidence
in their ability to learn. Asking children to do certain tasks may be
an expression of confidence which may influence the development of
feelings of personal worth as well as teach work skills. For example,
Mrs. Alien asked Nathan to give the baby her bottle, a particularly
difficult task for Nathan because of his small size. The fact that
Mrs. Allen asked Nathan to feed the baby could be seen as an expression
of her confidence in his ability to do so. Mrs. Allen stood near
Nathan as she helped him hold the baby in a comfortable position on his

lap and position the bottle, offering encouragement through her words

and patient actions. (7:15 a.m., May 6, 1980)

125

in a related incident, Mr. Allen had asked Mark to bring stools
from the kitchen to the dining area. The stools were taller than Mark,
making the assignment a challenging one. Mark tried to carry two
stools at once, but the load was too heavy and awkward for him and he
began to cry. Mr. Allen smiled at his predicament, explained he should
carry one stool at a time, and then helped him carry the stools to the
dining room. (7:30 a.m., May 6, 1980)

Mr. and Mrs. Allen typically assigned challenging tasks to the
older children as well, such as planning and preparing meals and caring
for younger children. They also often worked with the older chldren,
offering verbal instructions and encouragement as they helped them
develop needed skills. in addition to learning skills, the children
may have also been developing feelings of competence and confidence in
their abilities to do work. The following examples are indicative of
these teaching and supportive behavior patterns:

7:20 a.m.
Mr. Allen was preparing to making scrambled eggs for
breakfast, and asked Cristine to help him crack the eggs into

the pan. They stood side by side at the range.

Mr. Allen: You are doing well, Cristine. Fill it up.

(Pause) Let's turn it down a little bit. it's too hot.

Cristine continued cracking eggs into the pan.
Mr. Allen: Well you are going to have to hurry cause

these are getting scrambled before the rest get in.

Mark came into the kitchen, whining about something. Mr.

Allen lifted Mark up to the stove, standing him on a stool so

he could stir the eggs as they cooked. Mr. Allen walked from

the kitchen to see how Nathan was doing on setting the table.

(May 6, 1980)

in this example Mr. Allen was teaching Cristine and then Mark how

to prepare scrambled eggs both by modeling the working behavior and by

126

verbalizing what he was doing (eggs should be cooked at lower
temperatures), as well as by providing guidance and encouragement for
the children as they worked.

While Mr. Allen was helping the children scramble eggs, Mrs. Allen
was making preparations for a meeting she was attending that morning
and also helping from time to time with the breakfast preparations.
Mr. Allen had asked Cristine to get some applesauce and put it in a
bowl.

7:30 a.m.
Cristine shook the jar over the bowl but the applesauce
didn't move. Mrs. Allen came to help her, showing her how to

use a spoon to start the applesauce coming from the jar. in

the process the jar fell into the bowl of applesauce. Mrs.

Allen laughed good humoredly and Cristine smiled. Mrs. Allen

pulled the jar out and scraped the remainder of the applesauce

from the jar. Cristine finished stirring the applesauce and

put it on the table. (May 6, 1980)

in addition to providing instructions for how to get applesauce
from the jar, Mrs. Allen was also teaching that accidents were an
acceptable part of the learning process. This example also suggests a
potential advantage of learning skills in the home environment. When
the parents are supportive, mistakes may be less threatening or less
embarrassing than they might be in a less supportive environment. On
the other hand, when parents and siblings are not supportive, the
opposite effect may result.

interaction observed in the Brice household, where four of the
Achildren were in their teens, suggest these teaching and learning
processes continue as children grow older. One example is included in

the interaction sequence reported on pp. 165-166. Beth was preparing

waffles for breakfast and both Rachael and Mrs. Brice offered

127

suggestions to help Beth improve her skill at separating eggs. On
another occasion, Mr. Brice and Beth were preparing spaghetti and Mr.
Brice instructed Beth on the preparation process:

5:25 p.m.

Beth: Dad, what pan do i put the spaghetti in?

Mr. Brice suggests one.

Beth: How much water? About half way?

Mr. Brice: it won't be enough.

Beth adds more water to the pan, and asks: How much
spaghetti should i put in?

Mr. Brice: i don't know.

Beth takes the package to Mr. Brice. They both read over the
quantity indications printed on the package, and together they
decide how much spaghetti to use.

Mr. Brice: That's probably too much, but.... (His voice
trails off.)

Mr. Brice stirs some ground beef which is browning on the
range. Beth brings him the pan with the spaghetti in it, and
asks: How about this?

Mr. Brice: Honey, you didn't listen! 1 said after you get
the water boiling you put the spaghetti in.

Beth: Oops.

Beth goes to the sink, dumps the spaghetti into a colander,
fills the pan again and takes it to the stove. (March 24, 1981)

Another teaching pattern observed in the context of doing
housework was identification of acceptable quality standards for work.
For example, while Mr. Allen was supervising the Saturday morning
cleaning activities, he asked Nancy to vacuum the floor in the dining
area. She did a hurried job. Mr. Allen told her to do a better job,
so she vacuumed the area again. (9:30 a.m., May 17, 1980)

Another example that involved teaching standards occurred on a
Friday afternoon when Mr. Allen and Nancy were washing dishes they had
.used to make a pie, and Cristine was "licking the bowl" that had
contained the pie filling:

4:55 p.m.
Cristine finished eating the pie filling in the bowl, then

took a damp wash rag and wiped the bowl clean. She took the bowl
over to Mr. Allen saying it was clean. Mr. Allen noticed she had

128

wiped it with a wash rag, and told Cristine it needed to be washed

in soapy water.

Mr. Allen: You can catch a disease if you wash it like that.

(May 16, 1980)
in this example Mr. Allen was teaching an acceptable method for
cleaning a dish, and in addition provided a reason for the preferred
cleaning method.

Parents were not the only persons in the household involved in the
teaching processes, nor were children the only learners. This was
especially apparent in the Brice household where the interaction
sometimes took the form of an exchange of ideas, with children and
parents learning together, as illustrated in the example (p. 127) where
Mr. Brice and Beth are preparing spaghetti and consult on the quantity
they should prepare. in both the Allen and Brice households, children
sometimes shared information and ideas related to housework with their
parents. Most commonly these were food preparation ideas which they
had learned at school or from friends; in this way may have also been
teaching their parents.

Children were also observed teaching each other, sharing ideas on
how to do work, and supporting and encouraging each other as they
worked. For example, in the Allen household one morning after
breakfast Nathan was assigned the task of pushing the chairs around the
kitchen table. However, he was not having much success accomplishing

the task. The carpet was creating some resistance, and Nathan seemed
lto have difficulty getting the leverage needed to push the chairs in
place. in frustration he began whining and complaining, "This stupid

chair." Nancy was working in the same room, washing the table top, and

she encouraged Nathan, "You got to scoot, scoot, scoot." Her tone was

play

area

pro
COC
exa
1hr
ta:
ob
vi
of
FC
de
tr

T1

in
in
at
be

be

129

playful and supportive as she showed Nathan how to push the chairs
around the table. (8:05 a.m., May 5, i980)

interaction with children in the housework context appeared to be
a source of learning for parents. For example, parents may develop
managerial and leadership skills as they work with their children since
the teaching and motivating processes that accompany housework may
provide managerial challenges, especially when housework includes
coordinating the efforts of many people in a limited space. As an
example, when Mrs. Brice was coordinating the "spring cleaning" of
their home, she had originally organized the work so that all the
family members were working in the same room at the same time. She
observed that this had been a challenge in that it took continual
vigilance to keep the children at their tasks and to maintain a feeling
of harmony. She described the experience of all of them working in one
room together as "a little chaotic." Mrs. Brice said she finally
decided it was easier to work with each child, one at a time, helping
them do their assigned tasks, rather than trying to do everything with
the whole family together at once. Thus the work experience was a

learning experience for Mrs. Brice as well as for the children.

MW

Although parents used time and energy teaching children to do
work, the children were not always excited about doing housework. This
.was especially true for the older children. That housework was not
always a priority activity for children was indicated in the variety of
mechanisms they used to avoid doing work. Some of the work avoidance

behaviors were stalling, disappearing to a more remote part of the

130

house or outside the house, ignoring or pretending not to hear a
request, making excuses for why one should not do a task, complaining,
teasing and/or provoking conflicts with siblings, and appealing to the
parent's sense of what is fair. The following examples illustrate the
work-avoidance behaviors of disappearing, stalling, appealing to the
parents sense of fairness, and teasing.

Disappearing:

7:30 a.m.

Mr. and Mrs. Allen and Cristine were all helping prepare
breakfast. Apparently Brian was also supposed to be helping.

Mr. Allen asked where Brian was, and Mrs. Allen responded,
"Downstairs staring at the wall."

Mr. Alien called to Brian, tellng him to come upstairs.
Brian appeared some few minutes later wearing a smile that
suggested he had been purposefully avoiding the work. (May 6,
1980)

Staliing:

8:00 a.m.

Nancy was washing the breakfast dishes. She began
working on the task at 8:00 a.m. She would wash dishes for a
few moments, wander to another room, play, wander back to the
kitchen, work a few minutes, and would again be distracted by
some other activity. Occasionally she looked at the clock,
"Five to nine, 1 have five more minutes." She finished the
task at 9:00 a.m. when it was time to leave for school.

(May 7, 1980)

Appealing to rules or what is fair:

7:55 a.m.

Mrs. Allen asked Brian to do the dishes, and he whined
a reply, "Tomorrow's my day, Thursday. it's Nancy's turn
because it was her turn yesterday and she didn't have to do
them." (May 7, 1980)

'Teasing:

5:45 p.m.

Mr. and Mrs. Allen were out of town, and Mrs. Allen
left a note telling the children what they were to do. Brian
had cooked dinner, the children had eaten, and it was time to
wash dishes. Nancy and Cristine discussed who was going to do
the dishes. Nancy told Cristine it was her job; she said their

131

mother's note said Cristine was to do it. Cristine looked

puzzled; she looked for the note but could not find it. The

researcher reminded Nancy the note said they were all to do the
dishes. Nancy laughed and said she knew that. Cristine began
working on the dishes. Nancy looked at a book a few minutes,

then walked from the living room to the kitchen and back again.

(May 8, 1980)

Behaviors employed by the younger children to avoid work appeared
to be less sophisticated, relying less on evasive strategies, and
usually included complaining and/or whining.

Although these ploys for avoiding work usually made it possible to
delay the time they began working, or to prolong the time it took to do
a task, the children were seldom, if ever, successful at avoiding the
work entirely. Parents typically responded to work-avoidance behaviors
with a command to do the work, as in the following incident.

8:00 a.m.
Brian had been asked to wash dishes and instead picked up

the baby and was playing with her. Mrs. Alien issued a firm

command, "Put her down and get the dishes donel" Brian went to

the kitchen and began washing dishes. (May 6, 1980)

While parents were teaching children to do housework, they were
teaching more than skills to do work. They were also teaching
attitudes about work. One of those attitudes was that work is
something that needs to be done whether or not you feel like doing it,
or whether or not you like to do the task. They may also have been

teaching that there are times when personal goals must be sacrificed or

delayed and precedence given to family or parental goals.

WW.
Because doing housework was not always a preferred activity, an
added dimension of the process in teaching children to work was

providing motivation. The data were examined to identify clues of how

132

parents motivated the children to do housework. Methods included
working with them, expressing praise and approval, and offering
encouragement and rewards, and also by making the interaction enjoyable
through singing, talking, and showing affection. in addition, parents
sometimes used controlling behaviors such as prodding, expressing
disapproval or impatience, commands, rules, and punishment as means for
motivating the children to do their assigned tasks.

In the Allen and Brice households, the emphasis in motivating
children to do housework appeared to be on maintaining positive
interaction while doing housework, i.e. the participants seldom
volunteered the information that the tasks themselves were fun to do,
although there were suggestions that doing the work together was
satisfying. For example, on a particularly busy Saturday morning, the
Brice family had the added task of cleaning the front yard which had
been "newspapered" by some of the children's friends. Indications were
that they were not looking forward to the clean-up task: Mrs. Brice
commented she was upset when she saw the newspaper strewn about the
yard, "That was the last thing we needed right now." Beth and Rachael
teased each other over who would have to clean it up:

7:42 a.m.

Beth comes into the kitchen and laughs as she says to Rachael
that it is her job to clean the yard.

Rachael: I'm not going to do it. (She turns up her nose as

she speaks.) (March 28, 1981)

A few minutes later James announced that Mrs. Brice had said "the
whole family has to help clean the yard," and after breakfast Mrs.

Brice succeeded after some prodding in getting all the children outside

to work on the proJect. Once outside, they all seemed to enjoy the

133

work, although Mrs. Brice had to occasionally remind the children to
continue working. When the yard was cleaned Mrs. Brice observed,
"Doesn't that look good. Well, that didn't take very long, did it.
Can you imagine, Beth, how long that would have taken if you did it by
yourself." Back inside the house, Mrs. Brice continued, "Wow, you all
helped really good" (9:30 a.m., March 28, 1981). The children looked
happy and seemed to share her satisfaction in seeing the work
completed.

The above example also illustrates what appeared to be a
particularly successful strategy used by both Mr. and Mrs. Allen and
Mr. and Mrs. Brice to motive their children to do housework, that of
working with the children. A typical behavior pattern was for the
parent either to work with the child doing the same general task, as
when they worked together cleaning the kitchen following a meal, or to
work at different tasks but sharing the same time frame.

The presence or absence of a parent also appeared to sometimes
influence the motivation of children to do housework. There were
occasions when the children put off doing assigned tasks when one
parent or the other was not there to supervise. On the other hand, on
more than one occasion when parents were not available to supervise,
the children assumed responsibility for and completed their regular
tasks.

The parents also encouraged their children in their work through
praising them and expressing approval for their contribution to the
housework. Approval was communicated through a variety of behaviors

such as praise, a smile or a nod. in the following examples, Mr. and

 

 

 

Mr

Ci

iv';

A.

"I

 

134

Mrs. Allen were expressing approval of the quality of children's work
performance and at the same time providing encouragement to the
children as they worked.

8:15 a.m.

Mrs. Allen returned home after taking Mr. Allen to work.

She walked into the house, all the children were busy doing

their assigned tasks.

Mrs. Allen: You guys are doing well. (May 6, l980)

7:20 a.m.

Mr. Alien asked Cristine to help him make scrambled eggs
for breakfast. Cristine begins cracking eggs into the pan.

Mr. Allen: You are doing well, Cristine. Fill it up.

(May 6, 1980)

Parental approval of the work children did may also be a form of
encouragement that provides motivation for them not only to do their
tasks but to do them well. The inspection and check-off system used by
Mr. Allen to encourage the children in the Saturday morning tasks is an
example (p. 112).

There were indications that the children needed and/or wanted the
approval of their parents. For example, on occasions when parental
approval wasn't immediately forthcoming, the children sometimes asked
for approval. To illustrate, when Nancy and Cristine completed the
task of straightening the basement, Nancy smiled and asked Mrs. Allen,
"Doesn't this look better than the upstairs" (9:05 a.m., May 15, 1980).
When Brian finished washing the dishes, he asked, "Does the kitchen
look good?" He didn't get a response from Mrs. Allen so he asked
.again, "Does the kitchen look good?" (4:30 p.m., May 15, 1980). Brian
may have been asking for approval so he could also get permission to

leave, but he phrased the question in such a way that he could also get

approval for the way the Job was done.

tas

TO

C0

Th

135

The children also occasionally expressed approval of the housework
tasks done by their siblings, and approval from siblings also appeared
to be a source of motivation as well as contributing to feelings of
competence. in the following example approval was expressed as much by
the tone of voice as by the words expressed.

3:50 p.m.

Nancy and Cristine were in the living room playing with a
friend. Brian was in the kitchen, singing and making a peanut
butter sandwich. Brian walked into the living room with his
sandwich. The sandwich was made of four slices of bread layered
with peanut butter and jam.

Cristine, her eyes wide with amazement: Double toast
sandwich!

Brian, smiling: i made it myself. (May 8, 1980)

Parents often gave encouragement and approval to the pre-school
children as they helped provide for their physical care, during tasks
like dressing the children or teaching them to dress themselves, or
while feeding them or teaching them to feed themselves. For example,
Greg seemed not quite awake early one morning and was whining as he
contemplated putting on his clothes. Mr. Allen encouraged him, "Can
you get dressed? You can'tl I bet a three-year-old can get dressed"
(7:00 a.m., May 6, 1980). in this example as in others, encouragement
and approval were often conveyed as much by tone of voice and actions
as by the words used.

Mr. and Mrs. Allen also motivated children to do housework by
offering more tangible rewards such as promising the children they
Icould play when they completed their tasks. The following example
illustrates this pattern:

9:45 a.m.

Mr. and Mrs. Allen and the children were busy doing the
Saturday morning cleaning.

 

136

Mrs. Allen: Gee, if we get this all done, maybe we can
go to the mail and play around.

Nancy, sounding disappointed: i thought we could go on
a picnic.
Mrs. Allen: Have you looked outside. i don't think we

will be going on a picnic. (May 17, 1980)

it was raining outside, and Nancy appeared to be satisfied with
this explanation. The example suggests that Nancy was looking forward
to a picnic following their work activities and this anticipation may
have added incentive to complete the housework.

Material rewards, negotiation and bargaining were also used as a
means to motivate children to do tasks. For example, when Cristine
seemed reluctant to go with him to weed the garden, Mr. Allen
encouraged her by promising they could go "you know where" after they
completed their work (May 13, 1980). ("You know where" was a
neighborhood 7-il store.) An example in which bargaining was used was
when Mrs. Allen had spent the better part of a day working on a gift
for Brian to give the director of the school play in which he had a
part. When Brian came home from school, Mrs. Allen asked him to do the
dishes "because i have just spent the whole morning working on your
thing" (May 15, 1980).

Mr. Allen used a task check-off system to increase incentive for
the children to complete their Saturday morning tasks (See p. ll2). As
the children completed their assigned tasks, they would ask Mr. Allen
to inspect their work. Mr. Allen would then give them verbal approval
as well as check off the completed work on a chart. Mr. Allen said he
felt another important motivator was letting the children know exactly
how much they were expected to do so they could estimate when they

would be finished with their work and plan time for other activities.

137

Another incentive used by Mr. and Mrs. Allen to motivate the
children to do work was singing and conversing with the children as
they worked in order to make the interaction in the work context more
enjoyable. The children were expected to do their work whether or not
they liked the task. it was not uncommon, however, for children to
begin doing a task reluctantly and then apparently forget the
reluctance as they began singing or talking as they worked.

Singing while working appeared to be a common behavior of both
parents and children. The Allen children often sang as they washed
dishes, whether washing them by themselves or with others. Nancy said
they sang mostly when their Dad worked with them, and apparently Mr.
Allen was the parent who most encouraged the singing as a strategy to
make work more enjoyable.

Mr. Allen: The singing in the kitchen as they are doing

the dishes, that's initiated by the parent. Because when you

go to do the dishes, it's a chore, and initially when we started

doing that, we knew songs together, and, you know, "let's

practice this song," and we'd just sing our lungs out, and it

got to be really fun. And now when we're not even around they

still do it when they are doing the dishes. But i think it was

initiated by the parents, to make it more fun. (August, 1981)

Parents also motivated children to do housework by reminding, by
expressing disapproval or impatience, by giving commands, imposing and
providing explanations for rules, and by the use of punishment. These
behaviors were observed when children failed to do assigned tasks, or
when their performance at a given task did not meet parental standards.

in the following example Mr. Allen was reminding Nathan he had not
done his task, and also insisting the work be done.

7:30 a.m.

Nathan was helping set the breakfast table, and had failed
to put the cups on the table.

work
agal
iasl

COW

nu

138

Mr. Alien: Nathan, you didn't set the cups on the table
yet. Did you lose them or did you hide them? Come on. The next
time i see them I want to see them by those plates. (May 6, 1980)
Disapproval of the children's behavior or the quality of their

work may be a means to teach children to improve interaction as well as
work skills. The standards identified by the parent provide a norm
against which children can measure their success at doing a particular
task. in the process they may also develop perceptions regarding their
competence to do the work.

On one occasion when a child's performance at a task was
unacceptable the disapproval that was expressed was directed to the
person rather than the behavior. When a parent makes statements
equating a child's failure to reach a standard with failure as a
person, i.e. what the child does with what the child 15, the
attributions may have an impact on a child's feelings of personal worth
as well as their perceptions of competence. The following example
illustrates this type of attribution.

8:10 p.m.

Mr. and Mrs. Allen were away from home and Brian had been
asked to care for the younger children. Mark was misbehaving;
Brian shut him in a closet and left him there. Another child
rescued Mark from the closet (May 6, 1980). When Mrs. Allen
learned of the incident the following day, she told Brian she
did not approve of what he had done, then added, "Maybe i
shouldn't let Brian tend the kids--he isn't any good." (May 7,
1980)

While Mrs. Allen's intention may have been to expresss her
-disapproval of Brian's behavior and to teach positive interaction
skills, the attribution, "He isn't any good," may have a constraining

influence on the development of feelings of competence and personal

worth.

 

('10
HO

re:

Use!
Tasl
COW:
exar
Mr .

kiic

139

There were apparently occasions when parents may have been
feeling impatience with the children's behavior but the clues were not
readily apparent to an outside observer. For example, Saturday morning
while Mr. Allen was supervising the children's housework activities,
Mrs. Allen and the researcher were talking. Mr. Allen had put all the
chairs on the dining room table and asked Nancy to vacuum the floor.
Mrs. Alien observed, "i better go help Gary. He's getting angry with
the children" (9:30 a.m., May 17, l980). The researcher had not
noticed any difference in Mr. Allen's tone of voice or behavior.
However, Mrs. Allen was apparently sensitive to something the
researcher was not. This example suggests that disapproval and
impatience may be communicated through subtle, nonverbal behaviors.

When parents were impatient with children, the pattern was to give
commands rather than to request the children do a specific task. The
commands seemed to convey more motivational force since the children
usually did what the parents "commanded" them to do. Children also
used commands to try to motivate a sibling to help with a particular
task. However, the children were sometimes less responsive to the
commands of their siblings than they were to their parents. For
example, one morning while Cristine and Nancy were washing dishes and
Mr. and Mrs. Allen were away from home, Greg was walking around the
kitchen and dining area crying as he walked.

8:00 a.m.
Cristine stopped doing dishes to ask Greg what he wanted.

Brian told her Greg wanted a drink of water. Cristine did not

acknowledge Brian's suggestion or get Greg a drink. Brian

said it two more times, but Cristine continued ignoring Brian

and paying attention to Greg. Brian said, more firmly, "Give
him a drink of water, will youi i mean Greg." (May 6, i980)

 

 

 

51
at
CC
We

ex

140

In the preceding example Cristine initially did not appear to hear
Brian's advice, although Cristine finally took Brian's suggestion and
got a drink of water for Greg. However, that was not always the
pattern when a child "commanded" another child.

One of Mrs. Allen's more common controlling behaviors in the
housework and child care context was the imposition of rules for
behavior; she also typically added an explanation for a rule. The
following example illustrates the use of rules as a means for

motivating children in the context of child care and housework.

8:55 a.m.
Mrs. Allen to Mark, firmly: Only one change of clothes
todayi

Mrs. Alien went to the bedroom for Mark's clothes and
when she returned said again: Only one change of clothes

todayi
Mark: Okay.
Mrs. Allen: if you change them, then you have to go to

bed. You know that, don't you.
Mark: Okey.
Mrs. Allen: l'm washing about five times more than i

ought to be. (May 5, 1980)

in the foregoing example, Mrs. Allen stated the rule as well as
the punishment for disobedience, and also gave an explanation for the
rule.

There were occasions when no explanation for the rule was offered
at the time the rule was stated. in some of those cases the rule
appeared to be reflective of a parent's general attitude or philosophy
about work so perhaps needed no explanation. A rule Mrs. Allen
[consistently reminded the children about was, "if you are going to

watch television you have to tend the baby." At one point Mrs. Allen

explained that she considered television watching an idle activity and

141

disapproved of anyone watching it unless they were doing some
observable and productive activity at the same time.

A final motivating behavior to be considered is that of
punishment. There were few, if any, examples of physical punishment in
the context of housework during the time of the observation. Parental
disapproval and impatience may be interpreted by children as a form of
punishment. One type of punishment that was observed in the context of
housework was the assignment of a task as punishment for unacceptable
behavior. it was observed that Brian had been washing dishes rather
frequently during the recent observation visits, and the researcher
asked Mrs. Alien if washing dishes had been Brian's regular assignment
for that period of time. Mrs. Allen responded that his doing dishes
was a follow-through on the punishment they were giving him for
something he had done (9:i5 p.m., May 17, 1980). Using housework as
punishment may have the additional effect of teaching attitudes about
work.

For the most part, strategies used by Mr. and Mrs. Brice to teach
and motivate their children as they developed skills in doing housework
did not differ noticeably from those used by Mr. and Mrs. Allen. Mr.
and Mrs. Brice also began teaching their children to do housework from
an early age, and worked with their children doing housework. They
also sang together and conversed as they worked, and provided other
.kinds of encouragement. Mr. Brice said a method he had found effective
in teaching children to accept responsibility for housework was the use

of indirect praise, where one parent would tell the other parent about

142

the good work a child had done and would give that praise when the

child was within hearing distance.

Dixislon.91_Labnc

The division of labor, including the processes for determining
task allocation, was another important dimension of the structure of
housework that influenced family interaction and also had implications
for the development of human skills and attributes. Because all family
members participated in housework, decisions had to be made as to who
should do which tasks. Mr. and Mrs. Allen shared decision-making
responsibility for allocating tasks among family members, and both did
housework as well as supervised and directed the children as they did
their tasks. Mrs. Allen typically coordinated the family work efforts
on weekday mornings while Mr. Allen had primary responsibility for
Saturday morning housework. Decision-making responsibility for evening
work activities seemed less clearly defined; however Mrs. Allen, more
than Mr. Allen, seemed to make the decisions about who would do tasks
unless she was not at home or was busy with other activities. Whenever
possible, both Mr. and Mrs. Allen would work with the children while
they did their tasks.

it appeared that Mr. and Mrs. Alien maintained primary
responsibility for deciding which tasks the children would do. During
the time of the observations the parents did not usually ask children
‘ what they would like to do, rather they made assignments. Since it
was not readily apparent whether the children had some say in the

decision process, i asked Nancy how they decided who would do what

143

tasks on Saturday mornings. She responded, "My Dad just gives us
different jobs each week. He says, 'You do this and you do this.'"

Weekday mornings Mrs. Allen appeared to be the one who decided
which tasks the children would do. Some tasks appeared to be rotated
among the three older children on a regular basis, e.g. there were
occasional references to whose "turn" it was to wash dishes. Other
tasks seemed to be assigned on the basis of what needed to be done and
who was available to do it.

Tasks appeared to be allocated among the children more on the
basis of age than of sex. The three older children, Brian, Nancy and
Cristine, seemed to participate about equally in the preparation of
meals, clean-up following meals, general house cleaning, and caring for
younger children. The three younger boys, Nathan, Mark, and Greg, did
small tasks such as carrying dinner plates to and from the table and
running errands to get needed items for their parents or older
siblings. The three older children spent considerably more time doing
housework than did the younger children. According to Mr. Allen, the
younger children probably had less responsibility for housework than
the older children had at their age because it was easier for the
parents to have the older children do the work.

Mrs. Allen said that during the summer months, when school was
out, Brian, Nancy and Cristine were given additional responsibility for
.housework. They participated in the planning of menus as well as
shopping for food, and also were given more responsibility for the

preparation of meals (June 1, 1980).

144

There also seemed to be some effort on the part of the parents to
assign tasks on the basis of particularistic needs, as suggested in the
following example. Mr. Allen had mentioned he was going to take Brian

with him to work in the garden:

3:30 p.m.
Mr. Allen: is Brian coming home to help me?
Mrs. Allen: i thought he was coming home to help me.

Why don't you take Cristine? She needs to go. (May 13, 1980)
"Needing to go" in this instance apparently meant Cristine was needing
special attention from her parents. Mrs. Allen mentioned on one
occasion that she felt Cristine was going through a difficult time and
that she needed extra attention: "She needs to be an only child for a
while."

Boundaries of responsibility for housework between Mr. and Mrs.
Allen were not always clearly defined and there were occasions when
conflicts surfaced regarding the allocation of tasks. Even where there
seemed to be regular patterns of responsibility for tasks, there were
occasions when lines of responsibility needed to be reaffirmed or
renegotiated. There were also occasional conflicts regarding work
assignments for children, conflicts between the parents and children,
between the parents, and among the children.

The following illustrates conflict processes involving the
division of labor among family members. in this interaction episode
conflicts surfaced between Mr. and Mrs. Allen, between Mr. Allen and
Brian, and between Brian and Cristine. The interaction gives some
clues as to ways conflict is structured and helps identify the integral
position of housework in the conflict processes. The example also

illustrates the importance of considering whole family processes rather

 

 

145

than analyzing a "static moment" in isolation from the rest of family
living in that each conflict incident cannot be fully understood in
isolation of the whole interaction process. The muted conflict betwen
Mr. and Mrs. Allen over task responsibilities also suggests that it is
not easy for an outside observer to see all the issues involved in
conflict processes. in other words, there appeared to be more to the
issue being discussed than was apparent on the surface.

3:25 p.m.

Mrs. Allen had gone outside to talk to a neighbor. Before
she came in the house she called to Mr. Allen, who was also
outside.

Mrs. Allen: Gary, what are you doing?

There was no immediate response, but Mr. Alien soon appeared
and said he was going to "dig in the corn patch." Mr. Allen
asked how the car was working, Mrs. Allen said something. (All
the coversation was not audible).

Mr. Allen: You mean you have to go to play rehearsal again?

Mrs. Allen: Yup.

They talked about the car battery.

3:28 p.m.

Nancy arrived from school, and talked with Mrs. Allen.

Mr. Allen: is Brian coming home to help me?

Mrs. Allen: i thought he was coming home to help me. Why
don't you take Cristine? She needs to go. (Mrs. Alien had
apparently made arrangements with Brian to care for the baby
while she went to the play rehearsal.)

Cristine arrived from school with a downcast expression on
her face.

Mr. Allen greeted Cristine enthusiastically: Boy, am i
glad to see you.

Mr. Allen talked to Cristine about going to the garden, and
she responded with a droopy, "Oh."

Mrs. Alien, encouraging: That is one thing everyone has
liked to do-go to the garden and have a fun experience with Dad.

Mr. Allen told Cristine that after they went to the garden
they could go to "you know where." Cristine's eyes lit up.

Mrs. Alien: Where did you get some money?

3:30 p.m.
Greg had been napping upstairs, and came down the stairs.
He looked listless, not quite awake. Someone said he was sick.
Mr. Allen: A normal mother would put shoes on him.
Mrs. Allen was on her way out the door to the play rehearsal.

 

146

Mr. Allen, in a quiet but serious tone: Are we having dinner
tonight?

Mrs. Allen: Yes, i got hamburger out.

Mr. Allen: Are you going to make it?

Mrs. Allen: Yes.

Mrs. Alien left for the play rehearsal.

Mr. Allen was sitting in a large chair in the living room,
and Cristine was sitting on his lap. Mr. Allen talked to Brian
who was holding Alison.

Mr. Allen, good humoredly: Will you change her when we go?
Will you wipe her nose regularly.

Brian, sounding less than enthusiastic: Who will take care
of the boys?

Mr. Allen, with enthusiasm: You will. You will be the
mother of four.

Brian, whining: i can't.

Mr. Allen: Yes, you can.

Mr. Allen gets up and walks out of the room.

Brian, looking at Alison's runny nose: See, that is why i
hate babies.

The phone rings, someone about a ball practice for Brian.
After talking about the bail practice Brian tells Mr. Allen he
wants to go work in the garden.

Mr. Allen, smiling: All of a sudden you want to go labor,

huh?
Brian: Dad, will you hold Alison for just a minute while i
run see the corn?
Mr. Allen: No. We will let you go see it another time.
Brian, mumbling quietly: i never get to go see the corn.

Cristine was standing on the front porch, and said she
couldn't find her stockings. Mr. Allen told her they were down-
_ stairs, and Cristine skipped off to find them.

Brian yelled in a critical tone: Cristinei

Mr. Allen: What's wrong.

Brian: She scared that bird. There was a bird on the porch
and she scared it.

Brian turned to Cristine and in a demeaning tone said: You
are just being your old dumb self.

Cristine's face dropped.

Mr. Allen: Just tell him to....

Cristine, more cheerfully: To cram it?

3:45

Mr. Allen and Cristine were leaving for the garden.

Mr. Allen: You ready to take charge, Brian?

Brian: No.

Mr. Alien: Get ready. And you boys play in the back yard,
okay.

Mr. Allen and Cristine left.

Brian went to the kitchen to get a drink for Greg. Mark said
he wanted a drink, too.

Brian: Do you want some juice?

147

Mark: Ya, carrot juice.

Brian got a drink for Mark, then went to Alsion who was lying
on the sofa, crying.

Brian, in a motherly voice: What's the matter, Alison?

What's the matter?

Brian played with Alison and sang a few notes: Get a smile

on your face, little girl. (May 13, 1980)

The above example illustrates some of the issues that may arise
relative to the division of responsibility for housework, issues such
as whether individual or family goals should take precedence, what is
fair when arbitrating among individual goals, and what a person in a
given role ought to do. One could sense a certain amount of tension in
the questions and comments Mr. Allen directs at Mrs. Allen. Questions
about what is fair are not easily resolved; as the above example
suggests, an individual may be more aware of his or her own contribu-
tion to the work than of the contribution of others.

Conflicts regarding division of labor may easily surface in the
process of doing houswork. While it is a commonly held assumption that
conflict should be avoided because it is negative, the overall effect
of conflicts may not always be bad. Depending on how the family
processes conflicts, they may constrain or promote the growth and
development of family members. Conflicts are a part of life outside as
well as inside the home; if skills in resolving conflicts can be
developed in the home the individual will be better prepared to face
conflicts in the world outside. Among the issues that surface while
‘dolng housework, as illustrated in the above example, are, what is
fair? Why must i sacrifice what i want just so he or she can have what

they want? is 'not liking' to do something sufficient reason to avoid

doing it? Families may resolve these questions in a variety of ways.

148

it is apparent that conflict is an integral part of housework

processes, and may be an important stimulus to learning.

WW3

The allocation of tasks among family members and the decision
processes associated with the development of that particular dimension
of the structuring of housework also have implications for the
development of sex stereotyping. This section of the analysis will
consider how the social relations in the context of housework activites
may contribute to sex stereotyping.

Sex stereotyping may be transmitted through the assignment of
household tasks and through differences in work expectations among the
children. If there were differences in the children's task assignments
on the basis of sex stereotyping they were not readily discernable. in
an effort to identify clues the older children were asked, "Which are
boys' jobs and which are girls' jobs?" Nancy looked at me with a
puzzled expression and responded, "We just do it all together. Nobody
has certain jobs to do" (May 8, 1980).

There was one incident in the data where a child's response to a
work assignment suggested a difference in work expectations:

9:55 a.m.

Mr. Allen to Brian: Did you finish your other job?

Brian reported what housework he had completed.

Mr. Allen: That was all one job.

Brian, complaining: Daddy, the girls don't have to do that.

Mr. Allen: i want you to go clean the stuff off the floor
in Mommy's sewing room.

Brian: Oh good, i did that yesterday.

He smiled and went upstairs to clean the room. (May 17, 1980)

As can be seen in the above example, on this occasion Brian felt

he was having to do more housework than his sisters. This was the only

149

incident observed where a child referred to a difference in task
assignments based on sex differences.

Children developed sex stereotypes through modeling the behavior
of parents. in the Alien household all family members made a
substantial contribution to housework, and both Mr. and Mrs. Allen
assumed some of the responsibility for housework, assigning tasks to
children, teaching work skills and supervising the performance of
tasks, as well as engaging in housework themselves. Their economic
roles in the family were basically organized along somewhat traditional
lines, i.e. Mrs. Allen was a fulltime homemaker and Mr. Alien left the
home each weekday to work at a paid job. However, Mrs. Allen also
contributed to the income for the family through a home industry which
she had initiated.

Mr. Allen said he enjoyed the work he did in the home, and on more
than one occasion spoke in a joking manner about their having their
roles mixed:

Mrs. Allen had made a shadow box for Brian to give to a
teacher, and she asked Mr. Alien if he would like to walk to
the school with us to see it. Mr. Allen was in the kitchen
making tapioca pudding.

Mr. Allen: Okay, this is almost done. Can you wait a
second?

Mrs. Allen: Um-hmm. (yes)

Mr. Alien: l'll soon be through slaving over the hot stove
and you'll be through with your carpentry items. i think we got
our roles mixed. She had carpentry and shadow boxes and all
that stuff and l'm fixing dinner. Did you ever think you had
your role mixed up? We got our hormones mixed. We were put
together to sort of even us out. You'd have never made it with
a normal man and l'd have never made it with a normal girl.

Mr. and Mrs. Allen both laughed.

Mrs. Alien: i had a real advantage. Gary's mother died
when he was thirteen so he had no preconceived attitudes about
what his role ought to be.

Mr. Allen, laughing: l cooked and did the dishes, and i
made my little brother do the milking cows. (May 15, 1980)

—-.—--—_._ ..- __.

 

pl
mc

Me

150

Topics of conversation during play and the roles assumed by
children as they played provided clues to the children's perceptions of
adult roles and, therefore, to the development of sex stereotypes.
While Nathan and Mark often assumed typically male roles in their play
such as doctor, pilot, Superman and King Kong, they also occasionally
played housework. The following examples from the data illustrate the
modeling of housework roles in play. in the first example, Nathan and
Mark were playing outside in the sandpile.

3:00 p.m.

Nathan: We are making eggs.

Mark: l'm not wiping them up.

They both play in the sand. After a few moments Mark

said he was going to the back yard to swing and asked Nathan if

he wanted to come along.

Nathan: Yah. As soon as i finish the eggs. (May 15, l980).
in the following example, Nathan and Mark were in the family room
where most of the family were watching television. Nathan and Mark

were playing, and Mr. Allen has been trying to direct their play

towards going to bed:

9:20 p.m.

Nathan and Mark climb on Mr. Allen's legs and ask him to
play.

Mr. Allen: Okey, l'm a little boy and i want to come to

bed.
They continue their pretend dialogues.

9:25 p.m.

Mark: Dad is going to fix dinner.

Mr. Allen, in mock surprise: Dad is going to fix dinner!
i thought mothers did that.

Mark: The mother's died.

Mr. and Mrs. Allen both smile.

Mr. Allen: Mothers don't die. They just go to roadshows.
(A reference to the play Mrs. Allen had been directing at the
church). (May 16, 1980)

The above examples provide indications that, consistent with the

behavior patterns the children saw modeled in their home, the gender

Til

Si

151

concepts they were developing did not follow strictly traditional sex-
stereotyped lines.

While the sexual division of labor was minimal among the children,
the field notes referred to above indicate a general awareness of sex
stereotypes. Mr. Allen's statement that "mothers fix dinner" conveyed
a belief about sex stereotypes. The dialogue (pp. 162-164) about
inviting a girl over who was "chasing" Brian suggests strong beliefs
about sex roles and what is appropriate and inappropriate. in other
words, even though tasks themselves were not noticeably divided by sex,
gender beliefs were still conveyed in the interaction surrounding the
performance of tasks.

Sex stereotypes may also be learned in environments other than the
home and shared in conversations with family members that accompany the
performance of housework. On one occasion when Brian and Cristine were
washing dishes, the topic of conversation illustrated sex stereotyping.

8:25 a.m.

Cristine: Do you know why girls pick flowers?

Brian replied that he didn't know.

Cristine: They say the girls pick the flowers because the
flowers stink.

Brian: Ya, the girls pick the flowers because the flowers

stink. (May 5, 1980)

The source of information for this conversation apparently was
friends or classmates at school. The example illustrates the
transmission of ideas from one sibling to another in the context of
'housework activity, the work providing the excuse to be together in the
same room for a period of time thus facilitating the transmission of

ideas. The example also illustrates the transmission of ideas about

sex stereotypes from one sibling to another, with Cristine possibly

testi

leari

fami

dec

dec

beh

hOL

mar

‘8‘

de

152

testing the validitiy of the idea by stating it to Brian in order to

learn his response to the idea.

W

The structuring of housework to include participation of all
family members provided opportunities for parents and children to learn
decision-making skills. Much of what is taught or learned about
decision making was communicated indirectly, through modeling the
behavior of others and through making choices incidental to the
housework processes. For example, coordinating the work activities of
many family members required many managerial decisions. When Mr. Allen
was coordinating the Saturday morning cleaning several logistical
decisions were made:

9:35 a.m.

Mr. Alien: Nancy, the vacuuming's not going to be done
until after the kitchen floor is finished.

9:38 a.m.

Mr. Allen: Brian, you can't do that (task) until the girls
have washed the floor. (May 1?, i980)

Time allocation decisions were made in the housework context, i.e.
deciding whether to do housework tasks first, let them wait, or ignore
them altogether. Decisions were also made about the allocation of
material resources, including whether to purchase inexpensive products
or more expensive ones, what to eat for lunch and how much, and
decisions about the use of energy resources. in both the Allen and
vBrice families interaction patterns indicated children had the
opportunity to learn decision making skills through observing their

parents as well as through their own involvement in the decision making

processes.

153

in the following examples, decisions were made regarding the
allocation of limited resources, i.e. food, money, and energy.

8:25 a.m.

Cristine asked Mrs. Allen if she could have a banana.
Mrs. Allen divided a banana between Cristine and Greg, and said
that was all the bananas until she could get some more.

Mrs. Allen: We'll need to get some cheap ones.

After she said, "No more," Nathan and Mark started chanting,
"i want a banana, i want a banana."

8:30 a.m.

Mrs. Allen left in the car and returned at 8:45 a.m.
Nathan: Mom, what did you get?

Mrs. Alien: Cereal for the baby.

Nathan: Did you get any bananas?

Mrs. Allen: No, they cost too much money. (May 5, 1980)

The second example was observed in the Brice household:
6:55 a.m.
Beth asked Mr. Brice to drive her up the street. Mr.

Brice told her she could walk.

Beth: Dad. (Pronounced with two syllables, complaining
tone)
Mr. Brice: Beth. (Said with same two-syllable tone.) i

am not going to start the car just to go up there. My tank is

on a quarter tank. (March 24, i981)

Making the decisions in the preceding examples required a
consideration of many alternatives and ideas, including the weighing of
present needs and desires against future needs, and the weighing of
personal goals against those of others. in other words, when the
parents made these decisions they were communicating a system of
priorities as well as decision making outcomes.

in the foregoing examples, the parent was the decision maker and
the children were primarily observers. in the following examples, the
children were invited to participate in considering alternatives.

7:15 a.m.
Mrs. Alien had just come upstairs from waking the school-

age children and was looking in the refrigerator, apparently
looking for inspiration for breakfast.

Th

8E

Cl

154

Mrs. Allen: How would you like banana cream pie?

Nathan, coming up the stairs: No.

Mrs. Allen: Come on, you guys are no fun. How about
peaches and pears? There's no bread.

Mr. Allen and some of the other children were now in the
kitchen. No one seemed excited about the alternatives.

Mrs. Allen, laughing: How about scrambled eggs without
toast?

The menu was decided on--scrambled eggs and applesauce.

(May 6, i980)

in the preceding example family members were considering which of
the available alternatives could be used for breakfast. Decisions such
as this were common in the housework context, and they provided family
members with the opportunity of learning to weigh alternatives as they
consider resources available for meeting human needs.

Other decisions which the children made in the context of
housework processes involved the weighing of personal needs and/or
desires against those of other family members, as in the following
example where decisions were made about the allocation of food.

7:45 a.m.
Mr. Allen had prepared French toast for breakfast. When

Mrs. Allen sat down to the table she observed, "There's none

left." Nancy offered to give her some of her's. Brian offered

to give her some of his. Nancy remarked that the piece she

gave was bigger than the one Brian gave. (May 7, 1980)

When children participated in decision making processes, they not
only developed decision making skills but also contributed to family

integration as they evaluated alternatives in meeting the needs of

other family members.

WW

As family members interact in the context of housework they may
also develop attitudes about work. To identify clues of how tasks were

regarded, the data were examined for patterns suggesting hierarchies in

155

preferences for tasks, adjectives used to describe tasks, and verbal
statements describing feelings about tasks.

The analysis of the data suggest there were hierarchies in task
preferences, however there were some indications these were not stable
hierarchies but that they varied from individual to individual and from
time to time. in other words, task preferences often appeared to be
relative, or situation specific. Examples from the data already
referred to in this analysis give some clues as to task hierarchies.
For example, Nancy seemed to prefer cleaning dishes over feeding Alison
(May 16, l980), and Brian seemed to prefer hoeing corn over tending
children (May 13, i980), which would suggest that child care tasks were
not high on their list of preferred tasks. At another time, however,
Brian appeared to prefer tending Alison over washing dishes (May 6,
1980).

Clues as to how specific tasks were regarded were found in the
names and adjectives family members used to describe tasks as well as
in direct statements evaluating feeling about tasks. As an example of
adjectives used to describe tasks, when Mr. Alien asked Brian to tend
his younger brothers he referred to the task as "playing mother" (May
13, 1980). "Playing mother" could suggest the task was regarded as a
typically feminine task. it might also indicate, however, that Mr.
Allen, at least, did not see mothering as a strictly feminine task.

Adjectives describing tasks seemed to vary with the mood of the
person describing the task. For example, when Mrs. Allen appeared
tired and irritated (May 15, 1980), she asked the children to "pick up

the crud on the floor." On other occasions she was more likely to use

156

-‘ ~

the specific name of the item or simply say, "Pick that up." On that
same morning, Mrs. Allen instructed the children to clean their "groady
teeth" before leaving for school. On a more tranquil morning she
simply reminded them to brush their teeth.

indications of liked or disliked tasks were also observable
through nonverbal cues such as facial expressions. For example, when
Brian was washing pans after a meal, he grimaced as he tackled a
particularly messy pan (4:25 p.m., May 16, 1980). it appeared the task
was not a particularly pleasant one for him.

Statements indicating liked and disliked tasks were occasionally
made incidental to the work processes. When Mrs. Allen was mixing
bread one morning she sang as she worked, "Oh, i hate making bread"
(8:45 a.m., May 7, 1980). it was apparent from statements she made on
other occasions (August, i981) that Mrs. Allen did not always "hate to
make bread," but on this particular occasion it seemed apparent bread
making was not a preferred activity. There appeared to be a pattern,
in fact, suggesting that whether or not the activity in which an
individual was participating was liked or disliked was related, at
least to some degree, to what other activities were competing for the
individual's attention.

Another factor that appeared to influence attitudes about tasks
was whether the task provided a social opportunity and if it could be
done with a particular person. The gardening example (May i3, 1980,
pp. 145-146) also provided an example of this type of interaction.

When Cristine arrived from school, Mr. Allen extended her an

enthusiastic invitation to work with him in the garden. Cristine was

wear
res;
resi
gar
wor

enj

157

---a. ~--

wearing a sad expression on her face as she came in the house and
responded to Mr. Allen's invitation with a droopy, "Oh." Mr. Alien
responded, "That is one thing everyone has liked to do--go to the
garden and have a fun experience with Dad." The example suggested
working with a parent was generally seen as helping make the work more
enjoyable.

indications of liked and disliked tasks were given more directly
in response to the question, "What is your favorite task?" (May 8,
1980). The answers to this question also provided clues to factors
that influenced the way tasks were regarded. Cristine said her
favorite task was "Washing windows." When asked why, she responded,
"Because you get to play. You can make designs with the water." This
response suggested a factor influencing how tasks were regarded was
whether they were seen as being somehow like play. On the other hand,
activities which one might regard as play were sometimes considered
work by others. As an example, Nancy said her favorite task was
"jogging in the morning." When the researcher expressed surprise that
she would call jogging a job she responded, "Yes, it is a job. My
mother has to wake us up and we say, 'No, Mom.'" The activity was
apparently regarded as "work" in this instance because it was something

she was required to do rather than something she chose to do.

MW

This section of the analysis will consider interaction in the
housework context that, while not directly related to the work itself,

nevertheless was an integral part of the work processes. These

158

interaction behaviors included showing affection and listening (problem
solving).

Displays of affection were especially prevalent while parents were
providing for the physical care of children, while helping children
dress or while washing a child's face, for example. When Mr. Alien
washed Greg's face, it became a moment of playful and affectionate
interaction. As Mr. Allen washed, he played, "Where's your face?
Where's your nose? Where's your hair?" and Greg responded with
obvious delight (5:00 p.m., May 17, 1980). Occasionally Mrs. Allen
would pause from helping Greg, Mark or Nathan get dressed and hold them
close or give them a hug and kiss and say, "i love you." (e.g. 9:30
a.m., May 5, i980).

Communicating affection was not limited to child care tasks,
however. On one occasion, for example, Mrs. Allen was washing dishes
with Cristine. They were standing side by side at the kitchen sink,
Mrs. Allen washing and Cristine rinsing the dishes. Mrs. Allen worked
with one hand, her other arm around Cristine's shoulder, pulling her
close and singing, "To know, know, know you is to love, love, love
you...." (9:05 p.m., May 15, 1980)

Allowing a child to share the same physical space is another
parental behavior that communicated a feeling of respect and/or
affection for a child. in the following example there was no verbal
’interaction between the parent and children, nevertheless there seemed
to be some type of supportive interaction taking place.

2:30 p.m.

Mrs. Allen was sewing in the upstairs sewing room. Nathan
and Mark were in the basement watching television.

159

3:05 p.m.

Nathan and Mark went upstairs where Mrs. Allen was sewing.
They talked animatedly to each other, but not to Mrs. Allen.

They played and talked with each other in the sewing room while

Mrs. Allen sewed and talked with the researcher.

3:10 p.m.

Nathan and Mark were playing in the baby crib, talking
noisily; Mrs. Allen seemed not to hear them.

3:15 p.m.

A neighbor knocked at the door. Mrs. Alien went downstairs
and answered the door, then went out on the front lawn to talk
with the neighbor. The researcher remained in the sewing room
upstairs. Within a few moments Nathan and Mark moved their play
to the front lawn. They did not talk with Mrs. Allen but played
near her. (May 13, 1980)

During this time segment there was no verbal interaction between
its. Allen and Nathan and Mark. Why did the boys choose to locate
their play in the vicinity of Mrs. Allen? Nathan and Mark did not
always play where Mrs. Allen was working, but they did frequently
enough to suggest they felt some "invisible" support from sharing the
same space. it was common for Nathan, Mark and Greg to play in the
kitchen while Mr. or Mrs. Allen was working in that area (e.g. May 17,
1980). Even though the presence of the children sometimes seemed to
create some inconvenience-family members had to move around them as
they worked-nevertheless no one voiced any objection to their
presence. This same pattern in the use of space was also observable in
the Brice family; Steve often located his play in the same area where
Mr. or Mrs. Brice was working.

The structuring of housework as a group activity created
opportunities for children to talk with parents about issues of concern

to them, and, at the same time, opportunities for parents to listen and

respond. Behavior patterns indicated that whether or not a parent

160

listened and understood what the child was saying or feeling had an
almost immediate, observable impact on the child's behavior and
possibly also on the child's feelings of personal worth. Although all
the interaction during each interaction segment has not been included,
each is presented in some detail to provide a more complete picture of
the setting for the interaction. The following two examples also
illustrate how the structuring of housework may either encourage or
constrain problem solving interaction.

8:15 a.m.

Cristine had told Mrs. Allen she didn't want to go to
school today. Mrs. Allen was working in the kitchen, and
Brian and Cristine were in the basement. Brian came upstairs
to report that Cristine was throwing things. Mrs. Allen
commented that Cristine had been grouchy lately. Cristine
came upstairs and Mrs. Allen asked what was wrong. Cristine
did not reply, but she looked downcast.

8: 20 a. m.

Cristine and Brian were washing dishes; both were singing.
Mrs. Alien were also working in the kitchen and that general
area of the house. Cristine and Brian talked about why girls
pick flowers. Mrs. Allen talked to Greg and got a drink of
water for him, and checked on something Mark was doing.

8:25 a.m.
Mrs. Alien asked Cristine if she was having problems at
school.

Mrs. Allen: Are you having problems with Amy? is that
what you are feeling bad about all the time?

Cristine responded.

Mrs. Allen: When i talked to your teacher she said you
were really neat about it and finding others to play with.

Cristine explained to her mother how she saw the situation,
and Mrs. Allen tried to help Cristine think the problem through.

Mrs. Allen: Maybe part of the problem is that Amy is
leaving and she is trying to do this because she is upset. Do
you think that is it?

They continued their dialogue.

8:30 a.m.

As Brian left for school Mrs. Allen reminded him to come
home right after school. Mrs. Allen looked at a paper Nathan
showed her, told Nancy she could get some item she needed "on
pay day," talked with Nathan and Greg, and helped Cristine

161

finish cleaning the kitchen. Mrs. Allen, laughing, told
Cristine she could stay home from school if she wanted, but if
she did she would have to tend kids and stay in bed. Cristine
smiled and replied that she didn't want to stay home. Cristine
ran and skipped through the house as she got ready to leave for
school. (May 5, 1980)

When Cristine left for school she had a smile on her face and a
spring to her step, quite a contrast to her demeanor earlier in the
morning. Talking her problem through with Mrs. Allen seemed to have
alleviated some of her concerns. in addition, Mrs. Allen's willingness
to listen to Cristine was a way of showing respect for her as a person.
As can be noted, the topic of conversation between Cristine and Mrs.
Alien did not relate to housework, but the work activities provided the
reason for being together in a common space over a period of time, thus
facilitating the problem-solving interaction.

in the second example, the "problem" resurfaced three times, each
time while the participants were doing housework. The problem
apparently continued to resurface because it was not resolved to the
satisfaction of the participants in the preceding encounter.

Friday, 3:25 p.m.

Mrs. Allen had prepared dinner early so the family could
eat together before she left for play rehearsal. She asked
Brian to set the table.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Allen suggested they eat later, after Mrs. Alien
returned from play rehearsal.

Mrs. Allen: My whole purpose is to have us eat together.
Kate can't stay at our house.

Brian: How come.

Mrs. Allen: What do you think? Girls can't stay at boys'
houses.

Mr. Allen: What's this?

Mrs. Allen: Brian asked Nancy to ask Kate to stay over.

Mr. Allen, laughing: Wowi i can't believe it.

Brian: Can i have an orange?

Mr. Allen told Brian he couldn't have an orange, then
offered him a roll, teasing, "Get down on the floor; now roll

162

over," in place of the orange. Mr. Allen asked Brian what
they had for school lunch, and Brian replied they had carrots,
celery and milk, and "l'm starved."

Brian stalled, played around, rather than setting the
table. Mr. Allen told him to "stop fooling around" and set
the table.

3:40

Brian had been teasing the younger children. Nancy and
Cristine arrived from school, both in poor humor over a
disagreement they were having. Mr. Allen asked Brian to set
the table for dinner.

Mr. Allen: We have one Brian, one Nancy, and one Cristine
home grouchy.

Mrs. Allen was preparing dinner, with Mr. Allen, Nancy,
Cristine helping. Brian was setting the table.

Mrs. Allen to Nancy: Did you tell Kate today that she
couldn't come over and stay tonight at our house?

Nancy replied that she did.

Mrs. Allen: Good. 1 think she's really rude to ask if
she can stay overnight. And chasing you (Brian) like that!

Mr. Allen: Who told you you could have girl friends at
ten years old.

Brian: But i have other girl friends.

Mrs. Allen: Yes, but there's a difference.

Nancy dramatized how she told Kate she could not come over.

Mrs. Allen: Did you tell her she can't stay over 'cause
your mother thinks she is chasing her son?

Brian, with a hurt or defensive tone: 1 don't care, Mommy.

Brian continued to set the table as he talked, letting each
piece of cutlery hit the table with a loud thump.

3:50

The family sat down for dinner. During the meal Mr. Allen
tapped Brian over the head with a spoon, and Mrs. Allen
criticized Brian three times for demeaning remarks (put-downs)
he made to his siblings. At some point during the meal, Brian
asked if he could go to baseball practice the next day. Nancy
commented that Kate had said she was going to be at every game
so she could watch Brian play. Nancy told how Kate was excited
when Brian's team had won a game, and Brian blushed and grinned,
"Oh, ya."

Mrs. Allen, in a tone of mock delight: Oh, that's wonderful.
l'm happy you have a girl friend, Brian.

Brian, hopeful: You don't mind, huh?

Mrs. Allen: Oh, i think she's wonderful. I don't even
know her. (May 16, 1980)

Saturday, 9:45 a.m.
Mrs. Allen and Brian were cleaning the family room down-
stairs. Mrs. Allen explained to Brian he was too young to be

going places with a girl, "so if Kate asks you to go someplace

163

you can't. You can just do things with her at school."

Somewhere in the middle of her statement Brian asked, "How

come?" (Observations were being made from the stairway and the

remainder of the conversation was not audible.) (May 17, 1980)

These examples of problem solving and conflict processes provide
some insight into the on-going and dynamic nature of family
interaction. in the second example, the problem was not resolved
during the observation time and may never have been resolved to the
complete satisfaction of the participants. it is possible that many of
the problems that surface as families interact are of this recurring
nature. Conflicts are not isolated snapshots of interaction, but are
an integral part of the overall social relations within the family.

Housework appeared to be especially suited as a situation for
problem-solving interaction, not only because it provided a reason for
being together over extended periods of time, but also because the
housework tasks required minimal mental effort and the participants
could devote their mental energies to the problem. The typical
pattern in these dialogues was to work and talk, continue working while
next ideas were apparently being formulated, continue interaction with
other family members, return to the problem. And as the last example
illustrates, at times there were rather large intervals of time before
the participants were back together to resume the discussion of the
issue. it is also possible that participation in housework "absorbs"
some of the tension that might otherwise be part of a face-to-face
'discusslon of the issues. Brian's noisily placing the cutlery on the

table appeared to be an example of expressing frustration through the

housework rather than expressing frustration directly.

obser
Satur
guldi
Rache
his i
want
and ‘
Eric

01 s

Wha

enc

164

Similar problem-solving interaction in the housework context was
observed in the Brice household. The following example took place on a
Saturday morning. Mr. Brice had gone to work and Mrs. Brice was busy
guiding breakfast preparations (Beth was making waffles), helping
Rachael get ready for a school field trip, trying to help Steve find
his belt (Steve wandered between the kitchen and bedroom whimpering, "i
want my belt.") and washing dishes. James and Peter were sleeping in
and Ted had gone to help a relative do spring cleaning. Earlier Mrs.
Brice had explained she was feeling very tired and frustrated because
of some concerns she and Mr. Brice had regarding his employment.

8:30 a.m.

James came upstairs to the kitchen. Mrs. Brice asked him
if Rachael was downstairs. James did not respond. He walked
through the kitchen with a slow, foot-dragging step and a
droopy expression on his face.

Mrs. Brice: James, are you feeling sad today?

Mrs. Brice paused, looked at James, and added: You know,
i am feeling sad, too.

James nodded a "yes" to her earlier question, then added:
What did you say?

Mrs. Brice asked again if Rachael was downstairs.

James answered with some enthusiasm: l'll go get her.

8:35 a.m.

James helped Beth with the waffles, pouring the batter in
the waffle iron. Mrs. Brice looked for the broom, and Beth
said it was missing.

Mrs. Brice: James, can i give you the assignment of
finding the broom?

James jumped up, said "Yes," and left to look for the broom.
(March 28, 1981)

Although in this example James did not talk over with his mother
whatever was weighing on his mind, the fact that Mrs. Brice "listened"
or noticed the nonverbal message that he was feeling sad appeared to be
enough to change his mood. in this example, as in the previous one

involving Cristine and Mrs. Allen (May 5, 1980, p. 161), there was a

165

noticeable positive change in the child's demeanor when the parent
listened. There were also examples where the opposite was the case,
where the parent did not listen or at least did not respond in the way
the child seemed to prefer, and the child's mood appeared to change
from positive to a more negative one, as in the following example in
the Brice household. Mrs. Brice had expressed to the researcher that
she was feeling tired and frustrated because of some other family
concerns, and apparently did not have the emotional energy needed to
listen.

8:00 a.m.

Beth was making waffles for Saturday breakfast and wanted
Mrs. Brice to listen to a story she was telling. Mrs. Brice
was going hurrediy from task to task, and finally said wearily:
"Hey, i don't have time to listen to those. i have to help
Steve find his belt."

Beth stopped talking and began looking for some ingredients
for the waffles. Rachael observed the waffle iron was ready,
and said something about the recipe to Beth. Beth responded
irritatedly: "Lay off. Where's the sifter."

8:10 a.m.

Rachael offered suggestions for separating the egg yolk
from the white, and Beth again responded with an irritated tone
of voice: "Rachael, dear, i know how to do it, thank you. l'm
just not good at it"

8:17 a.m.
Mrs. Brice said she was feeling frustrated. She told Beth
she needed to work faster, adding: "At this rate we will be

eating breakfast by...." Mrs. Brice looked at her watch but
didn't finish her sentence.

Beth and Rachael consulted again about the waffles. Beth
said it wouldn't whip if the yolk was in the white. Rachael
said it would. Beth said it wouldn't because she did it once
and it didn't whip. Their voices were subdued but Beth sounded

edgy.

8:25 a.m.

Mrs. Brice offered some suggestions on how to separate the
eggs. Beth separated another one and was elated: Look at that
one; it stayed whole!

Mrs. Brice was standing at the kitchen sink scrubbing a pan.

Beth: Mom, can i tell you about those stories now?

166

Mrs. Brice, with a sigh: Beth, i just can't listen to those
now. (March 28, 1981)

Mrs. Brice again asked Beth to work "as fast as you can."
Both continued working in the kitchen, but in silence. (March 28,
1981)

mmmwmmmumm

The analysis identified parental and child behaviors observed in
the context of housework that appeared to influence the development of
skills and attributes in children. The analysis illustrates that these
behaviors were integral to the housework processes and that they were
an important dimension of the social relations that surround housework.
There are several ways in which the structure of housework seemed to
promote these types of interaction:

(1) The division of labor was structured to include all family
members in housework processes. Housework tasks ranged in complexity
and difficulty, and tasks were subdivided so young children as well as
adults could participate.

(2) When housework was a group endeavor, doing the work provided
a reason to be together. This structural characteristic is important
because interpersonal contact is a necessary ingredient for
interaction.

(3) The repetitive nature of housework provided a reason to be
together repeatedly over extended periods of time. The importance of
this structural characteristic was especially apparent in the examples
'of problem solving processes where the problem solving interaction was
threaded through other interaction in the housework context.

(4) Housework served as a topic of conversation, or the housework

processes themselves created the need for interaction. The quality of

167

interaction between parents and children as they worked appeared to

influence the development of skills and attributes in children and

adults.

(5) it is also possible there may be some intrinsic value in the
performance of housework that also contributes to this development.

The development seemed to be influenced by the combination of

interaction processes and work processes.

Observation data were gathered on two intact famiies, the Aliens
and the Brices. Both families had pre-school and school-age children.
in the Allen family, one parent worked outside the home for pay, and
in the Brice family both parents worked outside the home for pay. The
families were observed for a total of 77-i/2 hours, and observations
were recorded using shorthand notetaking. The families were observed
as they participated in housework and other activities in the
household setting.

The intent of the researcher in doing this ethnographic study was
to attempt to see the "whole picture" of the social relations
surrounding housework, putting aside preconceived ideas in order to be
open to new insights and chance discoveries. it is recognized that
such a goal is difficult to achieve since the field researcher always
comes with a background of assumptions and experiences. For example,
the researcher began with some basic ideas of what to observe. These
initial ideas helped focus the observations but at the same time may
have obscured other potentially relevant observations.

The following generalizations were formulated based on analysis

of the observation data: (1) Perceptions of housework affect the way

168

169

the household is organized for the performance of housework; (2) The
way the household is organized for the performance of housework
affects the quantity and quality of family interaction; and (3) Family
interaction behaviors in the housework context are related to human
resource development of family members. The following propositions
are suggested:

Proposition #1: Perceptions of housework affect the way the
household is organized for the performance of housework.

1a. The degree to which housework is perceived as a maintenance
function with efficiency as a goal affects the way the household is
organized for the performance of housework.

1b. The degree to which housework is perceived to have a
socialization function affects the way the household is organized for

the performance of housework.

1c. The degree to which housework is sex stereotyped affects the
way the household is organized for the performance of housework.

Proposition #2: The way the household is organized for the
performance of housework affects the quantity and quality of family
interaction.

2a. The way the household is organized for the performance of
housework affects the quantity of family interaction.

2b. The way the household is organized for the performance of
housework affects the quality of family interaction behaviors (i.e.
more/less supportive, controlling, coercive).

Proposition #3: Family interaction behaviors in the housework

context affect human resource development of family members.

170

3a. The amount and quality of family interaction in the
housework context affects the development of sex stereotypes.

3b. The amount and quality of family interaction in the
housework context affects the development of decision-making skills.

3c. The amount and quality of family interaction in the
housework context affects the development of attitudes about tasks.

3d. The amount and quality of family interaction in the
housework context affects the development of self concept.

Figures 1 and 2 (pp. 180-182) present the above propositions in a
diagram format. Hypotheses can be generated from these propositions
which could be subjected to empirical testing to help explain the
variation that occurs in human resource development in the family.

in both the Allen and Brice households, housework was regarded as
a means for keeping the house clean and providing for the physical
needs of family members. At the same time, and perhaps more
importantly, the parents regarded housework as a means for teaching
their children, helping the children develop skills and attributes
they considered important. This perception of housework could be seen
in the way the household was organized for doing housework: housework
was a major daily activity, all family members over l-l/2 years of age
participated in housework, and parents and children often worked
together at the same tasks.

Parental interaction behaviors observed in the housework context
included providing support, approval, disapproval, commands and
punishments as parents taught and tried to motivate children to do

housework. Other types of interaction observed during housework

171

included conflicts, singing, showing affection and problem solving.
Some of these interaction behaviors were directly related to the
housework processes, such as the behaviors directed towards teaching
and motivating children to do work. Other interaction behaviors were
not directly related to the doing of housework: nevertheless, doing
housework together created the context for the interaction. These
behaviors included showing affection, and talking about and listening
to non-housework topics such as children's concerns regarding
relationships with friends.

The structural characteristics of housework (including the
routine, repetitive nature of the work, and subtasks ranging in
difficulty) and the way in which the household was organized for the
performance of housework combined with the quality of interaction
during work contributed to the development of skills and attributes.
Because all family members participated in the work processes, all
developed skills and attributes. Specificially, both parents and
children were observed developing skills for doing work and making
decisions. in addition, parents were observed developing the skills
of teaching and motivating children to do work as well as managing
housework processes. Attributes that were observed included the
development of sex stereotypes and attitudes about work.

The analysis of the observation data suggests that housework may
be organized in ways to encourage family interaction, and that the
family interaction that accompanies housework processes makes an

important contribution to family well being. First and perhaps

foremost, when family members do housework together they are together,

172

sharing the same physical space at the same time, and being together
is an essential ingredient for interaction.. While giving low-level
attention to the work, participants were free to talk to each other
and to listen. if housework is organized in ways that emphasize group
participation, family interaction may be enhanced.

Family members also participated as a group in activities besides
housework. Further research is needed to consider the relationship
between the structure and organization of those activities and the
accompanying family interaction in order to identify behavior patterns

conducive to the development of skills and attributes.

LLmJJLaJLims

The findings of this research were derived from the observation
of two families, both of which were "intact" nuclear families with
preschool and school-age children. They lived in similar communities
and subscribed to similar beliefs regarding the importance of
housework. While the research findings may be valid for the subjects
of this research, it would be premature to assume the findings would
hold for a different population. Further research is needed to learn
about the social relations of housework in households of varying
composition, such as single-parent or single-person households. in
addition, more research is needed to learn about the social relations
of housework in families who have varying perceptions of housework,
including those who perceive housework more as drudgery than as an
opportunity for interaction or as a means for socialization of family

members.

173

The observation study was of limited time duration. Continued
research is needed to learn how change in the family environment over
time may influence social relations within the family. For example,
what changes occur with changing work roles of the husband and wife,
or as parents gain experience in parenting? As children grow and
develop and take on new responsibilities outside the family, how do

these new opportunities change the structuring of housework?

W

A major concern of early home economics educators, and especially
family management specialists, was to find ways of relieving women of
the burden of housework. Housework was regarded as burdensome and
time consuming by both the home economists and homemakers. Hence
family management specialists emphasized the goals of efficiency and
skill development as a means of lightening the homemaker's work load.
Today, even though the burden of housework seems to have lessened,
educators tend to continue emphasizing economic goals of efficiency as
a primary criteria for determining the structuring of housework. Home
economists working as teachers and extension agents need to continue
to make clients aware of efficient ways of doing work in the home.
However, they also need to make them aware of the potential housework
has for developing human resources in addition to finding ways of
reducing time investments in maintenance tasks and minimizing negative
aspects of the work. Family members can use the information on the
potential of housework as a context for developing human resources as
a basis for making rational choices regarding when housework should be

done efficiently to meet maintenance goals and/or when the work

174

activities might more appropriately serve as a context for family
interaction and developing particular human attributes such as
decision-making and work skills and attitudes. it may also be
feasible, especially as individuals develop skill in doing work, to
achieve both goals simultaneously.

Educators and families also need to be aware that inherent in the
everyday nature of housework is the potential for integrating family
members by creating a sense of continuity between the individual and
the family as a social unit. For example, participation in housework
may be treated not only as a necessary labor to be accomplished for
the maintenance of the household but also as an expression of inter-
dependence and belonging to a particular social unit. Educators can
help families understand that work as participation in a social unit
such as the family can be culturally and personally meaningful.

The findings from this research suggest that family life
educators need to view family relationships, management, and everyday
tasks of child care, food preparation and other housework as an
integrated whole. Relationships and/or management processes do not
occur in a vacuum, independent of other family activities. Rather,
they are inextricably tied to context. Housework is a recurring part
of family activity and offers opportunities for developing family

relationships and the building of human resources.

WW

Theory and research relating to housework in the fields of home
economics, economics, sociology and Marxist-feminism rely heavily on

an economic paradigm. Viewing housework from an economic perspective

175

has acted as a blinder, obscuring the social relations that surround
housework as well as the developmental potential of participation in
housework.

Production models, both human capital and Marxist-Feminist,
neglect the array of human emotions experienced in housework processes
as well as the nuances of family interaction such as teaching children
and the positive interaction between adults and children as they work
together. Economic, production oriented frameworks that assume market
equivalents of goods and services produced in the home are adequate
substitutes for those produced in the home may be misleading. Time-
use studies in particular, with their heavy emphasis on maintenance
activities, may be generating and/or perpetuating critical
misunderstandings regarding the nature of housework because they
ignore the human interaction which is integral to the work.

Research and theory in the field of family relationships and
child development has provided valuable information regarding family
interaction behaviors and their implications for development of skills
and attributes. (See Rollins and Thomas, 1979, for an excellent
summary of theory development in this area.) However, this body of
theory has developed with an almost total disregard for the context in
which family interaction occurs. The analysis of data for the present
study suggest that the context or ecology of interaction is a critical
_ variable in the development of human relationships and human
resources.

Findings from this ethnographic research suggest a new paradigm

for the examination of housework. This paradigm views housework as a

176

context for social interaction and human development, and places
emphasis on the relationship between housework structures, family
interaction and the development of human resources.

To sharpen the theoretical understanding of the propositions
suggested by this research, it is important to observe and study
varying types of households. Since learning needs of fan ly members
change over the family life cycle, families representing different
stages in the life cycle need to be studied. The number of members in
a family and the type of family, l.e. dual worker, single-parent,
three-generation, may also be important variables to examine relative
to the importance of housework as a context for interaction and human
resource development.

Changes in family life style and technological changes may
influence both the need for interaction as well as opportunities for
family interaction. Changing activities of parents and/or children,
such as whether piano lessons are given in the home, the extent to
which goods are produced at home for sale, and involvement in school
activities, may create new contexts for human resource development
and/or they may diminish the role of family.

it may be noted that the household organization for doing
housework (division of labor according to sex, age, skill or other
criteria) and the structural characteristics of housework (the
_ repetitive nature of housework and the fact that many tasks require
little skill and mental effort) identified in this research as a means
for encouraging family interaction and developing skills and

attributes are the same characteristics that have been identified in

177

the literature as being related to dissatisfaction with housework and
as justification for the denigration of housework. The present
research suggests that to some extent the boredom and lack of
challenge associated with housework may be related both to the way
housework is perceived and to the way the family organizes housework
processes. For example, if housework is regarded solely as a
maintenance activity, and especially if one person consistently does
all the housework and/or works alone, feelings of boredom, monotony,
and dissatisfaction may be more common than if housework is regarded
as a means for development of skills and attributes and is a group
activity accompanied by interaction with others. More research is
needed to understand these social dynamics and the developmental
implications.

Differences in the way housework is perceived and the resulting
organization for doing housework may also be related to variations in
the kind and quality of family interaction in the housework context.
The analysis of data for this research indicate that when housework is
perceived as a socialization activity, the parents interact with the
children in positive, supportive ways. On the other hand, if
socialization of children and performance of housework are seen as
contradictory goals, parental interaction behaviors may be more
negative. For example, Olson (1981) reported a relationship between

division of household labor and negative family interaction, i.e.
"husband's help and market-service help decreased the frequency of

negative interaction between mothers and children, but children's help

178

increased it!" (p. 78). in her analysis of why this was so, Olson
stated,

The findings are easily explained when we examine the content

of helping behavior. According to the respondents, recruiting

help from children involved a complex set of interactions

between parent and child, with help often requiring more (not

less) work for the mother. Recruitment of help from children

is itself frequently characterized by negative interaction

between mothers and childreni Further, supervising children's

housework help often involved frustrations for respondents, as

did the discovery that the quality of help was less than was

desired. in fact, help from children was often really no help

at alll (p. 78)

in other words, according to Olson, for many women housekeeping
and child care are contradictory roles. Further research is needed to
discover whether there would be a difference in the kind and quality
of family interaction in the housework context if families placed more
importance on housework as a means for teaching skills and attributes
than as a means for maintaining order, cleanliness, and providing
goods and services needed for family maintenance. The perception of
housework as a socialization activity could lead to different
interpretations of "negative" interaction (see Olson, 1981), i.e. as a
teaching/motivating behavior rather than symptomatic of conflicting
goals. This view could also lead to different expectations which
would lessen the frustrations parents may experience while working
with children. Theory needs to be developed and research condUcted to
help us understand and answer these questions.

Research needs to be conducted to indicate how family maintenance
tasks are structured in settings other than the household. For

example, household maintenance tasks such as child care and housework

occur when a family is on vacation, camping, or visiting in another

179

home. The potential for human resource development in these settings
also needs to be considered.

Continued theory development and research is needed to understand
the interdependence of family interaction and environmental context as

it relates to the development of the human potential.

APPENDIX

1.

1a.

1b.

ic.

2a.

20.

Figure 1.

180

 

 

Perceptions of
housework

 

Type of household organization
for performance of housework

 

|_.

 

 

 

 

 

Perceived relative importance

of the maintenance function

 

.-—9 Type of division of labor

 

 

 

 

 

 

"’ Frequency of doing houseworkVW]

 

 

 

 

Degree to which housework is
perceived to have a
socialization function

 

 

 

"9 Type of division of labor

 

 

 

 

-—9 Frequency of doing housework

 

 

 

 

 

Degree to which housework is
sex stereotyped

 

-—’[Type of division of labor

 

 

 

T" Frequency of doing housework

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of household organiza-
tion for performance of
housework

 

(Quantity and quality of
"2 family interaction
in housework context

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of household organiza-
tion for performance of
housework

 

“‘2 Quantity of family interaction
in housework context

 

 

 

 

 

 

Type of household organiza-
tion for performance of
housework

 

-—% Quality of family interaction
in housework context

 

 

 

 

 

Diagram of Propositions.

3.[

3a.

3b.

3c.

3d.

4.

4a.

4b.

4c.

4d.

 

Amount of family interaction
in housework context

 

 

Amount of family interaction
in housework context

 

 

 

 

Amount of family interaction
in housework context

 

 

 

 

Amount of family interaction

 

in housework context

 

 

 

Amount of family interaction

in housework context

 

 

 

 

in housework context

Quality of family lnteractionl__,

 

 

Quality of family interaction

 

in housework context

 

 

Quality of family interaction
in housework context

I_l

 

in houswork context

 

Quality of family lnteractionl__,

 

Quality of family interaction
in housework context

 

Figure 1 (cont'd).

181

*‘ ..—

 

Human resource development

‘-’ of family members

 

 

 

Degree of sex stereotyping
in family members

 

 

 

 

__’ Level of decision-making
skills of family members

 

 

 

Type of attitude about
housework tasks

 

 

 

Level of self esteem of
family members

 

 

 

 

Human resource development
of family members

 

 

 

 

Degree of sex stereotyping

-9 in family members

 

 

 

 

Level of decision-making

-—’ skills in family members

 

 

 

 

Type of attitude about
household tasks

 

 

 

 

Level of self-esteem in

-—, family members

 

 

 

182

 

 

mconeos >_.Em+
*o +cosao_o>oo
moc30moc cuss:

 

. co_+omco+c_
H>__ee+ co >+__e=o

 

 

 

 

:o_+omco+:_
.ii.§>__so+ +0 +caoe<

 

.mco_+_m0aocm +0 >Lmassm .N ocam_m

 

 

xcozomao;
yo mocmec0+coa
Lo* co_+m~_cmmco
n.058maoz co oa>h

 

 

 

 

xcozmmaoc *o
mco_+aoocom

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Acker, J. R. Women and stratification: A review of recent literature.

W. 1980, 2, 25-39.

Baker, G. R. Patterning of family resources for educability:
Conceptualization and measurement in Costa Rican families.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,
1970.

Barrows, A. Extension work in home economics through agricultural

agencies. WW. 1913. 5. 60-66.

Becker, G. S. A theory of social interactions. Joucnal of EollIioal
Eoonomy, 1974, 82, 1063-1093.

Becker. 6. 5. WM- Chicagc: The
University of Chicago Press, 1976.

Benston, M. The political economy of women's liberation. .Moninix_
Boxlow, 1969, 21, 13-24.

Bergmann, B. R. The economic risks of being a housewife. Ibo

MW. 1981. l. 81-86.

Berch, B. The development of housework. l1niocnoilonol_1oucnol_o1_
W. 1978. l. 336-348.

Berheide, C. W., Berk, S. F., & Berk, R. A. Household work in the

suburbs: The job and its participants. lanlilo_Soo1o1oglooL_
Boxiou, 1976, 12, 491-517.

Berk, S. F. Womon_ano_honsono1d_1aooc. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications, 1980.

Berk, S. F., & Berheide, C. The "Rashomon" of household labor: A
comparison of wives and husbands accounts of household task
contribution. Paper presented at meeting of the American
Sociological Association, Sociologists for Women in Society, San
Francisco, 1978.

Beutier, i. F., 8 Owen, A. J. A home production activity model. Home
W. 1980. 2. 16-26.

183

184

Bose, C. Social status of the homemaker. in S. F. Berk (Ed.), Womoo_

ooo_nousono1o_1ooo£. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications,
1980.

Boulding, E. The human services component of nonmarket productivity
in ten colorado households. Paper presented at roundtable on the
Economy and Sociology of the Family, Royaumont, France, January
3-6, 1977.

Brown, C. (V.) Rethinking the family: The role of housework in our
economy. Paper presented at Center for Research on Women,
Stanford University, May 16, 1979(a).

Brown, C. (V.) Women's economic contribution to the family. in R. E.

Smith (Em). W. Washington.
D. C.: The Urban institute, 1979(b).

Brown, D. (V.) Home production for use in a market economy. in B.

Thorne (Ed. ). MW.
New York: Longman, 1982.

Brownlee, W. E. Household value, women's work, and economic growth,

1800-1930. MW. 1979. 32. 199-209-

Carruth, E. F. A time study in dishwashing. JonLnoL_oi_Homo_
Economics. 1915. 1. 37-38.

Carver, T. N. Home economics from a man's point of view. Joucnol of
Wise. 1913. 5. 291-300.

Clark. E. A campaign for home making. MW.
1909, 1, 167-170.

Davey, A. J. Relationship of family interaction to family
environment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1971.

Dreyfus, H. L. Knowledge and human values: A genealogy of nihilism.

MW. 1981. 82. 507-520-

Ferber, M. A., 8 Birnbaum, B. G. The new home economics: Retrospects

and Prospects. W. 1977. A. 19-28.

Ferree, M. M. Working class jobs: Housework and paid work as sources

of satisfaction. .SQQlil_ELth§m§. 1976, 23, 431-441.

Galbraith, J. K. The economics of the American housewife. .Aiioniio_
.Moninly, 1973, 222(2), 78-83.

Gardner, J. Women's domestic labor. Now_Lo11_Bo11ow, 1975, 82,
47-58 0

185

Gauger, W. Household work: Can we add it to the GNP? Joncna| of
, W. 1973, on, 12-15.

Gecas, V. The socialization and child care roles. in F. l. Nye
(Ed.). MW. Beverly HIIIS.
CA: Sage Publications, 1976.

Gilbreth, F. Scientific management in the household. Joucnal of Home
Economies 1912. A. 438-447.

Gilbreth, L., Thomas, O. M., & Clymer, E. .ManagemenI_Ln_1ho_nomo.
New York: Dodd, Mead 8 Co., 1954.

Glaser, B. G., 8 Strauss, A. L.
. Chicago: Aldine
Publishing, 1967.

Glazer-Malbln, N. Housework. .Slgno, 1976, 1, 905-922.

Goldsmith, E. 8. Time use of beginning families with employed and
unemployed wives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan
State University, 1977.

Hartmann, H. l. The family as the locus of gender, class, and
political struggle: The example of housework. Signo, 1981, 5,
366-394.

Hunt, C. Woman's public work for the home an ethical substitute for

cooperative housekeeping. W. 1909. 1.
219-224.

Kahne, H., & Kohne, A. 1. Economic perspectives on the roles of women

in the American economy. W. 1975.
1:, 1249-1292.

Keniston, K. & The Carnegie Oeuncil on Children. All on: onildcon;
W. New York: Harcourt Brace

Jovanovich, 1977.

Kyrk. H. W. New York: Harper and
Brothers, 1933.

Kyrk. H. W» Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1953.

Lee, D. .Enoodom_ond_cu11uno. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
inc., 1959.

Lopata, H. 2. W. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1971.

186

Manning, 5. L. New perspectives on production in the home--The
historical view. in -
Ino_monko1. Workshop sponsored by the Family Economics-Home
Management Section, AHEA, June 21-23, 1979.

McKeever, W. The new child labor movement. .Jounnoi_o1_uomo_
Economics. 1913. 5. 137-139.

Moiyneux, M. Beyond the domestic labour debate. Nou_Lo11JBo11ow,
1979, llfi.(July/August), 3-27.

Nelson, L. Daily activity patterns of peasant homemakers.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,
1963.

Nelson, L. Household time: A cross-cultural example. In S. F. Berk

(Ed.). WW. Beverly HIIIS. CA: Sage
Publications, 1980.

Nichols, A. Person-centered and task-centered styles of organization.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University,
1964.

Nye. i. F. 32W. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1976.

Oppenheimer, V. K. The sociology of women's economic role in the

family. MW. 1977. .42. 387-406.

Oakley, A. lIno_§oo1ology_o1_nousouonk. New York: Pantheon Books,
1974.

Oakley, A. Prologue: Reflections on the study of household labor.

in S.F. Berk (Ed.), Womon_ono_nou§onolo_Looon. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage Publications, 1980.

Olson, J. T. Role conflict between housework and child care.

WW. 1979. 6. 430-456.

Olson, J. T. The impact of housework on child care in the home.

EamJJLBelailons. 198'. 52. 75-81.

Paolucci, B. invisible family production: The development of
resources. Unpublished paper presented at meetings of the
National Science Foundation, January 2-6, 1977.

Paolucci, B. Memorandum to C. Hefferan, September 28, 1979.
Peterson, R. 0. Problems in estimating the value of household

services. WW. 1978. 51.
145-148.

187

.__,. .-.—.

Piotrkowski, C. S. Household work and family process: A study of
everyday life. Paper prsented at the meeting of the National
Ocuncii on Family Relations, August, 1979(a).

Piotrkowski, C. S. lWonk_and_1ho_iamllx_s¥siem. New York: The Free
Press, 1979(b).

Rap0p0rt. 8.. & Rapoport. R. W. New
York: Basic Books, inc., 1977.

Reid. M. 6. Wm. New York: John
Wiley, 1934.

Rollins, B. C., 8 Thomas, D. L. Parental support, power, and control
techniques in the socialization of children. in W. R. Burr, R.
Hill, I. F. Nye, 8 i. L. Reiss (Eds.),

We;
aooo1_1no_1amLLy, Volume 1. New York: The Free Press, 1979.

Schultz, T. W. Woman's unsettled economic frontier. Human Capital
Paper #72.5, University of Chicago. Paper presented at the
University of New York, Blnghamton, October 10, 1972.

Skoinick, A. '
family. Boston: Little, Brown 8 Co., 1973.

Slocum, W. L., 8 F. l. Nye. Provider and housekeeper roles. in F. l.
Nye (Ed. i. W. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1976.

Smith, A. R. Communication patterns of mothers in mother-child
interaction within the home. Unpublished master's thesis,
Michigan State University, 1968.

Smith. D. E. A sociology for women. Paper presented at the Women's
Research institute of Wisconsin, inc. (No date).

Smith, D. E. A sociology for women. in J. A. Sherman 8 E. T Beck
(Eds.). W.
Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1977.

Sokoloff. N. J. W
nomo_ano_manko1_uonk. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1980.

Steidle, R. E., 8 Bratton, E. C. .Wock_Ln_1be_bome. New York: John
Wiley, 1968.

Stewart, G. The economics of the family. .JoucnaL_o1_flomo_£oonomlo§,
1910, 2, 209-232.

Thrall, C. A. Who does what: Role stereotypy, children's work and
continuity between generations in the household division of

labor. mm. 1978. 3. 249-265.

188

Trelman, D. J., and Terrell, K. Sex and the process of status
attainment: A comparison of working women and men. Amonioan_

WW. 1975. All. 174-200.

Vickery, C. Women's economic contribution to the famiy. in R. E.

Smith (Edd. Wis. Washington.
D. C.: The Urban institute, 1979.

Walker. K. E.. 8 Woods. M. E. WA.
. Washington, D. C.:

Center for the Family of the American Home Economics Association,
1976.

Warner. A. Art in the home. MW. 1915. l.
8.16.

Warren, J. Use of time in its relation to home management.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, 1938.

White, E. W. The home and social efficiency. Jon:nal_o1_flomo_
W: 1913: 2) 122-1300

White, L. K., 8 Brinkerhoff, D. B. Children's work in the family:

it's significance and meaning. .JouLnaL_o1_MaL:1aoo_ano_1no_
family, 1981, A}, 789-798.

Williams, J. C. A fact basis for home economcs. .Jonnna1_o1_flomo_
Economics. 1926. .18. 254-258.

Wright, J. 0. Are working women really more satisfied? Jou:naL_o1_
WM. 1978. All. 301-313.

Zaretsky. E. W. New York:
Harper, Colophon Books, 1976.