FAMILY AND GENDER IN THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

QUESTIONS

1. 2005- How did industrialization affect class structure, family and women’s
lives in 19th century Europe?
2. 2007- What was the impact of industrialization on women, family, and
composition of elites and working classes in France or Britain in the 19th
century?
3. 2008- Same as 2007
4. 2009- The industrialization of Europe altered the work experience of
many women. Comment.
5. 2010- In what way did industrialization impact women’s work and family
structure in Britain and France in the 19th century?
6. Tute Question- Industrialization transformed the nature of family and
introduced new professions, altering the nature and character of the
family economy. Comment.
INTRODUCTION

The Industrialization of Europe, occurred between 1750 and 1914, starting in

Britain, and was marked by three phases, each associated with a different region
and technology. It was accompanied by many changes (i) structural change in
the economy as the contribution of the agrarian sector to the economy reduced
and that of the industrial and commercial sector increased, (ii) use of new
sources of power which revolutionized production, (iii) shift to manufacturing
on a large scale-in factories, (iv) technological innovations and (v) new types of
investment. Clive Trebilcock, delineates the three phases of industrialization-
the first phase pioneered by Britain (1780s -1820s) the second phase (1840-
1870) saw France, some areas of the German States and U.S.A. industrialize,
while the third phase (1890s-1914) saw Italy, Japan, Sweden, Austria, Russia
and in parts Spain and Hungary industrialize.

SOCIAL CHANGES- The industrial revolution had far reaching social

consequences, which varied across class and regions. Between the late 18 th and
early 20th centuries, (i) new family and class structures emerged to adjust to the
new wage economy and production shifted out of the house to large scale
production in factories. (ii)Industrialization also caused population migration
from rural areas to urban areas, as factory emerged around towns. Marvin Perry
says in 1800, about 10% of the Europeans lived in cities. But by 1850 this
increased to -52% of Englishmen living in cities, 25% Frenchmen and 36%

1
Germans. As rural production couldn’t compete with cheaper factory
production, rural workers moved to work in factories.

IMPACT ON CLASS STRUCTURE: Industrialization and capitalism greatly

impacted class structure. Marvin Perry says industrialization of Europe
destroyed forever the old division of society into clergy, nobility and commoners
and led to the creation of a new class of the workers and the growth of the
middle class or bourgeoisie.

(a) WORKING CLASS: Industrialization gravely impacted the mass of workers

who participated in the new wage economy and as Karl Marx said had nothing to
survive on but their labour. Peter N Stearns says that the early decades of
industrialization in Britain and France (1780-1840s), most industrial workers
lived in great hardship barely meeting their subsistence needs, as wages were
kept low and prices rose. Crisis such as illness and old age brought misery for
many. However Stearns points out that the most fundamental transformation for
workers was in work experience.

Factory production transformed the traditional rhythm of the labour force

which came from agricultural/craft backgrounds. Thus two interlinked aspects
of work experience transformed were-(1) the notion of time and (2) work
discipline. E.P. Thompson explains this was because changes in manufacture
now demanded greater synchronization of labour and greater exactitude in time
routines, simply because time was money in the new wage economy.

 Thus factory owners developed detailed rules on the organization of

the labour.
 The lazy pace of rural work life, in which time was based on the
seasonal clock, was vigorously attacked by employers.
 In most factories workers were meant to arrive on the whistle, if they
were late they were either locked out/fined. Within the factory
workers couldn’t wander, chat or sing.
 Mechanisms of labour supervision were introduced as many workers
lacked discipline. Thus a new category of workers-‘foremen’ were
hired to supervise work, hire and fire workers.
 Workers were prevented from wearing watches and workers reported
“The clocks at factories were often put forward in the morning and
back at night” thus reflecting the exploitation of workers through
time. Employers also restricted holidays and looked down upon
revelry.

2
  Certain entrepreneurs also set up schools in collaboration with the
church to inculcate values of, “industry, frugality, order and
regularity” in new workers.
 Another important change experienced by workers, was the
specialization of labour. Growing number of workers had to
perform small repetitive tasks as this led to greater efficiency. Yet
specialization, led to a limited sense of achievement as repeating one
task made workers feel they hadn’t contributed to the final product.
This was a change as previously workers were involved in all
processes of production and felt a sense of achievement.
Specialization of work, the new discipline, rigorous time
schedules and low wages all contributed to a feeling of alienation
for the worker, from his work and employer.

Workers’ reaction: Workers soon expressed their resentment, first generation

workers protested by stealing, spoiling factory material, taking unauthorized
days off, (e.g. French workers invented the practice of ‘Holy Monday’ or holiday
on Monday). Second and third generation workers accepted changes in return
for higher pay/reduction of work hours and later formed committees and unions
to articulate their demands as they realized time was money for owners too.

Employers Response: Sonya .O. Rose says employers couldn’t ignore workers
dissatisfaction for long.
 1850s onwards employers developed policy of paternalism- in which
the employer sought to create a sort of familial relationship with his
workers, by assuming the role of the head/father and treating
workers as his dependent children. Paternalism also used gender
distinctions which existed in the 19th century family to enhance
loyalty and diminish worker resistance. E.g. in Britain Cadburys of
Birmingham, created a whole community of cottages at Bourneville
(Birmingham) with recreational grounds and three bedroom cottages
for their workers. A boarding house for single women workers.
Edward Cadbury recognized that mingling of the two sexes was a
‘moral danger’ and thus introduced separate work areas for males
and females. As a rule he didn’t employ married women as they had
familial duties and distractions. The Cadburys also started an
education scheme to prepare young males for work and girls for
marriage. In France Michael .B. Miller shows how the Boucicaut family

3
 opened the first department store in Paris called Le Bon Marche
(1838) and employed workers at a relatively good wage, however in
the 1870s his workers began to leave, since they suffered from health
problem especially tuberculosis as they worked in a closed
environment, for long hours, were under close supervision and felt
alienated in the bureaucratic Bon Marche structure. The garcons who
contributed physical labour were paid less than others causing
dissatisfaction. Thus M. Boucicaut resorted to paternalism-that
encouraged thrift and tried to make workers aspire to a bourgeoisie
lifestyle. He introduced dress codes for his employees (e.g. they were
meant to wear top hats to work). All in order to cultivate gentlemanly
behaviour in his white collar workers and shore up their allegiance to
his business, as workers would find it beneath them to work in
smaller less exclusive stores. Industrialization also had profound
impacts on working class family organization, women and work.
(refer to working class family now)

(b) ELITES –THE MIDDLE CLASS OR BOURGEOSIE

 Industrialization led to the growth of an urban middle class/bourgeoisie,

comprising entrepreneurs, professional-lawyers, notaries, physicians and
teachers. Marvin Perry says this bourgeoisies was not homogenous, it
comprised wealthy bourgeoisie –the bankers, factory & mine owners and
merchants, less rich professionals-lawyers, shopkeepers etc.
 Jonathan Sperber says in rural areas the old land owning elite still
existed, persisting longer in France and Germany than Britain, and even
longer in Eastern Europe. In fact in 1840 in France the old land owning
elite comprised 65% of the ‘great notables’.
 Jackson J. Spielvogel says that the early industrial entrepreneurs didn’t
establish empires easily. The early industrialization environment was
intensely competitive, with the fear of bankruptcy facing numerous small
businesses. As bankruptcy hit, new entrepreneurs entered the race.
Entrepreneurs had to perform a variety of tasks- raise capital, determined
markets, set company objectives and organize labour.
 Entrepreneurs also emerged from diverse backgrounds, most came from
the mercantile backgrounds, e.g. Cyfarthfa Ironworks was set up by
London merchant Anthony Bacon in 1765 in Whales. Similarly the Renault
brothers in France whose family was in the textile industry in 1899
founded Renault an automobile company. Many entrepreneurs also

4
 emerged from close knit religious minority groups –e.g. the Barclays and
Lloyds in banking and the Darbys in iron works, were all Quakers (a
Christian minority, which was discriminated against). In Britain &France
old aristocrats also became entrepreneurs for example the Dudleys of
Staffordshire. Entrepreneurs later also came from professional middle
class. One of the oldest banks in France Society General was founded in
1864 by a group of industrialists from diverse backgrounds. Marvin Perry
says as industrialization began and the middle class grew but it didn’t
immediately gain power and social respect, since it grew in a society
dominated by the old feudal landowning elite. The new elites only
assumed socio-political power by the late 18th century as their wealth
grew. The industrial revolution also had a profound impact on the family
structures of the new bourgeoisie. (Refer to middle class family)

IMPACT ON THE FAMILY: From the 1980s, historians focused on changes in

families of the industrial revolution, focusing on women and children specially.
Lynn Abrams defined the family as follows, “The family is a set of social
relationships connected by blood, property, dependency and intimacy.” She says
family as known today- as a hierarchical kin community, living under one roof
developed only in 18th-early 19th century in Western Europe. Before that family
denoted a relationship of dependency on the head of the household and not
necessarily blood ties.

 18th century family: Lynn Abrams says pre-industrial 18th century family
was indistinguishable from the household and comprised those who lived
in the house-including (a) kin members like widows, siblings, step
children and(b) non-kin members like servants, tutors etc. All family
members engaged in family/ domestic production (family economy).
Reproduction and production (food/goods) were taken care of within the
house. Such households may have seemed patriarchal yet Julie Hardwick
says women also held positions of authority e.g. the male head’s wife
oversaw other women and servants. Males, who didn’t perform their
duties, were drunkards, spendthrifts lost their authority. Marriages were
keystones of the family economy as brides and grooms both made
financial/material contributions. All members of family were valued as
producers, especially women. Widows and spinsters were part of the
household and contributed to the family economy.
In the 19th century, Louise. A. Tilly and Joan. W. Scott, pointed out that
the ‘family economy’ was replaced by the ‘family wage economy’ as

5
 industrialization caused the growth of wage labour and shift in
production, outside the household to factories. The family wage economy
was now defined by the need for money, to pay for food and rent, towards
which individual wage earners contributed. This shift, led to a change in
family structures, as family now became synonymous with ‘house’ and
now comprised only kin members living under one roof. As production
shifted outside the house, families were presented with the dilemma, of
who would take care of production needs and who of reproduction/child
care, as both didn’t take place within the household anymore. Thus two
spheres emerged which became associated with gender roles- (i) the
private sphere associated with family and femininity, handled by
wives/mothers, and (ii) the public sphere of work, commerce and politics
associated with men.

WORKING CLASS FAMILY CHANGES, POSITION OF WOMEN AND WORK: Tilly

and Scott, examining this change in the working class family look at the role of
children, daughters and married women and their centrality to the family wage
economy.

 Children and specially daughters were an important economic recourse

for working class families, as they were put to work at a young age
between 10- 14 years, to contribute to family income. Typically girls from
rural England and France shifted to cities, as the growing urban middle
class created a demand for domestic servants. For e.g. 2/3rd of all domestic
help in England in 1851 were daughters of rural labourers, while French
cities had a high proportion of rural domestic servants too-
Versailles(1825-3) 3/5th , Marseille (1864-71)57% and Bordeaux 50%.
 Rural parents preferred sending daughters into domestic service, as it
required only domestic skills (child care, laundry etc) which girls
possessed and domestic service provided a relatively safe environment,
food, clothes and lodging for girls.
 A daughter’s departure also relieved the family of economic burden and
ensured an additional economic contribution by them, since many girls
saved money to send home. (France- Marie R. was an exceptional case-she
managed to save money for her marriage, gather a trousseau and sent a
part of her earnings to her mother.)
 Daughters and children also found great employment in the new
mechanized textile industry as their nimble fingers were preferred by
employers. Tilly and Scott show that often whole families shifted to new

6
 textile towns such as Manchester and Preston (England) and Roubaix and
Toulouse (France) to take advantage of manufacturer’s appeals for
families with “healthy strong girls”.
 Manufacturers employed paternalism, to attract single rural girls by
offering them board and lodging, and in the case of Monsieur Bonnet even
arranging marriages and dowry for girls.
 Often families shifted to factory towns, to work together in a factory,
since parents could supervise their young children who also worked. In
such cases a parent collected the collective wage of all his family
members- e.g. the Metigy family together earned 46 Francs a week. The
textile industry in which women and children found greater employment
than men was more lucrative than other sectors, women were paid well,
jobs availability was high which often led to saving. A similar pattern of
families working together was seen in mining towns such as Anzin
(France), where men worked in mines and women and children sorted
coal on the surface.

The shift of work outside the house and the earning of individual wages by
daughters and children had important repercussions.

 Daughters who shifted to cities became more independent of family

control, especially in spheres of marriage and spending money. If they
lived at home, since they contributed a wage, they developed a say over
family expenditure and decisions. Yet this independence was
accompanied by greater vulnerability of economic and sexual
exploitation of young girls. In cities wages were often low,
employment was seasonal and unstable due to economic fluctuations.
Thus prostitution developed as a new occupation in order to survive.
In 1836, Parent Duchatelet found that majority of prostitutes in Paris
were recent immigrants. Yet in good times jobs were plenty, and young
women preferred to work in cities. This often led to permanent
migration and sometimes a loosening of family ties. However on the
whole Tilly and Scott argue that the period saw a continuity of strong
family ties as most children felt a sense of obligation to their parents
and because family also provided other benefits, as family ties
maintained by mothers, helped children find jobs and lodging in new
cities.
 The impact on younger children especially till 1840s was very low
literacy rates e.g. studies from Manchester showed most children,

7
 “picked up some schooling between 3 and 12 years at irregular
intervals.” The economic needs of families took precedence over
education. This situation improved slightly after compulsory primary
education laws were passed in Britain (1841), France and Germany
post 1840s. Michael Anderson says that children earning a wage often
gained some independence too and sometimes entered, “relational
bargains with their parents on terms of more or less precise equality.”

MARRIED WOMEN’S ROLE: Married women in the family wage economy

played multiple roles, which varied across working class and middle class
households.

 Amongst working class, women contributed wages to the family fund,

managed the house, bore and cared for children. Once women married
their domestic duties and child care increasingly conflicted with their
capacity to earn a wage as industrial jobs demanded longs hours away
from home. This conflict was resolved by married women not working,
unless financial necessity demanded. It also led to the concept of a ‘male
bread winner’ emerging, as a result of gendering of the newly created
public and private spheres discussed above. A gendering of spheres was
more blurred amongst working class homes in which married women
were forced to work.
 Women’s work reflected a distinct pattern. Women worked in full time
industrial jobs before and in early years of marriage before childbirth, if
necessary. After childbirth women usually took on non-mechanized
garment trades (e.g. needlework) or earned wages as caterers,
laundresses, charwomen and as keepers of cafe’s and inns, jobs which
could be done from the house thus reducing time away from home.
Women carrying out these jobs usually didn’t consider themselves as
employed, to avoid paying taxes. Women’s jobs were often low paying,
exploiting and temporary.
 It was usually when what Michael Anderson refers to as “critical life
situations” hit (death, illness or unemployment of a husband) which were
common in the 19th century, that married women were again forced to
work; in textile towns’ wives of men in low paying jobs, worked in the
mills. In such situations, the gendering of private and public spheres
blurred as males often fulfilled domestic duties.
 Another impact of married women being forced to work was a rise in
infant mortality rates as children were sent to wet nurses and their

8
 nourishment suffered. Yet the survival of the family was more important
than that of an infant. As children grew up to age 10 and could be put to
work, mother’s were spared working, as children now took on this role,
contributing to the family fund. Married women were then forced back
into the workforce, in their old age, when children got married, moved
away and husbands grew old and ill. In such cases married women took up
any work they found.
 In the domestic sphere married women played vital roles, they cooked,
cleaned and nursed the wage earning family members. Majority of the
working class budget was spent on food; Michael Martineau’s study of
wage spent on grain in five types of French families between 1823 and
1835 shows an average of 55%. A mother’s managerial role was well
recognised in the household, as she managed the family fun to put food on
the table. As children spent more time at home only leaving when married,
bonds of affection also increased between mother and children as she
organized the family and fed it. Mothers also fulfilled an important social
role, of maintaining larger family ties, by visiting relatives with gifts and
preparing food for festivals. This was important as the larger kin network
helped children get employment and shelter when they moved to cities.

MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES:

 In middle class or bourgeoisie Lynn Abrams says that children and wives
usually didn’t work and especially not out of financial necessity, as males
earned well enough. Thus the gendering of the private and public
spheres was greater in the middle class household, as the married
woman’s ideal role was that of a mother and wife, who maintained a good
house and provided an emotional haven for husband and children to
escape the hardships of the industrial world. Abrams says the middle class
mother’s role as chief organizer of the house was valued. T
 The increasing association of the home with women led to women being
seen as dependents and incapable of productive roles like-politics and
work. It also led to the development of patriarchy. Yet women’s
withdrawal from the work space didn’t entail a total withdrawal. Women
in England and France contributed financial recourses to family
businesses and often controlled husband’s business activity. E.g. in France,
Deborah Simonton, shows family businesses often combined the names of
husband and wife e.g. The Mequillet-Noblet Cotton Company.

9
 The division of private and public spheres also emerged within the
house, as private bedrooms became distanced/distinct from common
spaces like the kitchen and parlour. Thus Abrams says that in the 19th
century the home was increasingly on display, and the family became self
conscious, drawing rooms were filled with ornaments, furniture and
wallpaper often made by the women of the house since the women were
now primarily judged for their domestic roles. Women also became the
representatives of the family as they stayed at home and met with
relatives, salesmen and officials.
 With regards to children, the mother child relationship was central to
the new family as children now came to fulfil an emotional role as opposed
to a financial one. One saw the development of a concept of childhood and
adolescence as Peter .N. Sterns points out because children began to stay
home longer usually till marriage, even within working class families. This
was because middle class children didn’t work but were educated for
longer now and in the working class labour laws (1830s) and compulsory
education laws (1840s) in Britain and France, led to literacy increasing
and children staying at home longer.
 The middle class family also offered escape for working husbands from the
hardship of work life, thus family activities such as playing the piano after
dinner and family holidays developed.
 With regards to single mothers and widows who didn’t fit the domestic
family ideal the space for them to be integrated into a household reduced,
as families became smaller.
 Peter N. Sterns also says industrialization led to decreasing birth rates
first in middle class and by 1870s in working class due to emphasis on
birth control. In the middle class this ‘demographic transition’ occurred
due to greater emphasis on the concept of childhood, education and
familial bonds. While in working class households it occurred due to
economic pressure, to conserve recourses. By 1900 most families had 2-4
children instead of 6 to 8.
 However Tilly and Scott also point out that the transformation of the
family was widespread yet all families didn’t shift to the family wage
economy, in France especially compared to Britain small farms with family
production died out only in the early 20th century.

20th century: In the early 20th century the family structure changed
further as industrialization matured. The nuclear family with the conjugal

10
 relationship at its core emerged in the late 19th century becoming the
norm in the 20th century. The early 20th century, saw changes in working
class married women’s work life.

 The number of married working women declined. This was due to the
following reasons-

i. The sectors of the economy which employed the largest number of

married women shrank. (e.g. garment and shoe trades in England
and France).
ii. Married women who worked from the house also lost out as number
of boarders decreased as rural to urban migrants reduced.
iii. Increase in the real wages of men between 1880 and 1914 led to
improved standard of living of working class and married women
preferred to stay home.
iv. The increase in wages, led to a reduction in illness and disease, thus
men and children were healthier and fewer married women were
widowed and forced to work.
v. The trend of decreasing family size matured in this period, which led
to fewer children and hence lesser economic demand for married
women to work.
vi. Prolonged residence of wage earning children in the house, allowed
married mothers to stay at home in working class families now.
Thus 20th century saw widows and old women rather than married
women being forced to work.

In conclusion the 19th century middle class norm of the mother at the centre
of the family as a homemaker or ‘angle in the house’ and the clear cut
gendering of spheres, became the widespread in working class households
by the late 19th-early 20th century. This was one of the main social legacies of
industrialization and capitalism in the 19th and early 20th century,
interlinked to the development of a working class and growing bourgeoisie,
which changed the social fabric of Western Europe.

11