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)-a
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, a subsequent(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

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

(i)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 the working class and the
growth of the middle class or bourgeoisie.

(a) IMPACT ON 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-(a) the notion of
time and (b) 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.

2
 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.
 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 work. 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.

3
 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. E.g.2: In France Michael .B. Miller shows how the
Boucicaut family 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)IMPACT ON ELITES –THE MIDDLE CLASS OR BOURGEOSIE

 Industrialization led to the growth of an urban middle

class/bourgeoisie, comprising (a)entrepreneurs and (b)professional-
lawyers, notaries, physicians and teachers., Marvin Perry says this
bourgeoisies was not homogenous, it comprised wealthy bourgeoisie

4
 –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. Industrialization offered great
possibility of money but with great risks. The early industrialization
environment was intensely competitive, with the fear of bankruptcy
facing numerous small businesses. As bankruptcy hit, new
entrepreneurs entered the race-e.g.1 in 5 mills in Manchester in
1816 were with the original owner. 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. E.g2
Similarly the Renault brothers in France whose family was in the
textile industry in 1899 founded Renault an automobile company.
Many entrepreneurs also 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:

5
 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 18 th 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. E.g.2Males, 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 19 th century, Louise. A. Tilly and Joan. W. Scott, point out that
the ‘family economy’ was replaced by the ‘family wage economy’ as
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

6
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.

 They say, children and specially daughters were an important

economic recourse for working class families, as were put to work at
a young age between 10- 14years, 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. (e.g. 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 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.

7
 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 spjheres 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 the 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,
“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

8
 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.

 In 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 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. E.g. 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
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

9
 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/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
 he 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

10
 businesses often combined the names of husband and wife e.g. The
Mequillet-Noblet Cotton Company.
 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 19 th
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

11
 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 relationship at its core emerged in the late 19 th 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 five
main reasons-
 (a)the sectors of the economy which employed the largest number of
married women shrank. (e.g. garment and shoe trades in England and
France).
 (b)Married women who worked from the house also lost out as
number of boarders decreased as rural to urban migrants reduced.
 (c) increase in the real wages of men between 1880 and 1914 led to
improved the standard of living of working class and married women
preferred to stay home.
 (d)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.
 (e)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.
 (f) 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 19 th and
early 20th century, interlinked to the development of a working class
and growing bourgeoisie, which changed the social fabric of Western
Europe.

12
13