ROLES O F FARM WOMEN IN ENGLAND

THE NATURE O F WOMEN’S CONTRIBUTION TO FARM AND RURAL LIFE

The role of women in British agriculture has been neglected by agri- cultural economists and rural sociologists alike. The British farm worker, who has attracted the attention of many academics, is usually portrayed as a man, despite the fact that over a quarter of the hired labour on farms in England and Wales today is female. While agricul- tural economists recognise that most farms are run by families, little attempt has been made to masure systematically the nature of the wife’s contribution to the business. Rural sociologists writing about farm families in Britain have tended to emphasise women’s marital roles, to the exclusion of any other. “Women’s studies” are relatively new in Britain and the best examples describe the lives of urban housewives. True to the anthropological tradition in British univers- ities, too, more is known about the roles of women in the agriculture of developing countries than at home.

Despite its neglect by academics, the important contribution which women make in agriculture by maintaining and reproducing the labour force, assisting in farm production and business management and

In the irst place, British agriculture is an industry of family firms, 98 per cent of farms in England being family concerns in the Sense that all business principals are related by blood or marriage. In a national survey Harrison (1975) found that threequarters of all farm business principals in England trquired a successor to their business interests.

The Women’s Farm and Garden Association supported the rcsearch project on which this paper is based

rural communities, is self evident.

166

Most had already identified a suitable heir and fewer than one per cent had chosen someone from outside the family as their successor. Con- trary to expectation, recruitment to farming from within families appears to be increasing. Thus the role of wives in producing and rearing successors and in socialising them to accept that role, is crucial to the survival of most farm businesses.

Second, women have far from a negligible role to play in farm production. Over the past thirty years “the drift from the land” has meant the disappearance of hired male workers from many British farms. One’result has been to make farmers’ wives more significant in the total workforce. Today over threequarters of the agricultural holdings in Britain have no full time employees. Nearly half the farmers and wives are on holdings where they provide at least 80 per cent of the labour (Britton, 1979). Overall, wives contributed some 5 or 6 pcr cent of the regular labour on farms in England and Wales in 1970/1 (Sparrow, 1972; Britton and Hill, 1975). O n some types of farm, notably smaller dairy holdings, the wife’s contribution is considerably greater.

Third, some farmers’ wives play a significan t part in decision making and administration. Their role in the farm ofice is particularly important with many wives helping and some having sole respon- sibility for farm records and accounts. Most wives are expected to answer the telephone, see callers and run errands. Growing complexity of farm technology and increasing sophistication of management techniques mean a mounting burden of paperwork on most farms. A continuation of the cost-price squeeze make it more imperative than ever to monitor farm costs and returns. All this implies an increasingly vital role for women in the farm office.

Women also make a vital contribution to rural community life by providing, free of charge, those welfare services and amenities which help to maintain the stability and enhance the quality of life. Parti- cularly in some of the more isolated parts of Britain, if farmers’ wives withdrew their services the quality of life would deteriorate. This in turn might hasten the vicious spiral of rural depopulation. High energy costs and public spending cuts are at present having serious repercussions on rural communities in Britain. Hence the role of farmers’ wives in helping to supplement or replace public welfare services through unpaid voluntary action could well become more significant.

167

RESEARCH ON ROLES O F FARM WOMEN

Whilst most farm women may perform most of the functions outlined above, they will probably differ in the emphasis they give to each function. Some will regard family and household responsibilities as the most important while others will place more weight on decision mak- ing or manual farm work. It should therefore be possible to classify farm women according to their predominant roh. Pearson (1979), for example, divided women in a farming community in Colorado into independent producws, agricultural partnerr, agricultural help and farm homemakers. Craig (1979) identified these four role types among farm women in Australia and added a fifth which he termed matriarch.

The present study, too, takes role as its unit of analysis. Here “role” is intended to mean more than a job title or men the sum of activities pursued by a person in a given occupation. It can best be understood in its dramatic sense. A person who performs a role is like an actor who steps into a part with all its associated actions, responsibilities and relationships. One who embarks on the occupation of farmer, for instance, will be expected to engage in such activities as cultivating and raising livestock. Wi th the role he assumes certain responsibilities, such as “good stewardship of the land.” As a farmer he enters into defined relationships with other groups - farm workers, the government, farmers’ unions and the like.

The behaviour expected of an actor is likely to vary with the eco- nomic, social, cultural and historical context in which the role is played. Characteristics of the actor may influence role expectations too; it has been observed, for instance, that different standards are applied to an elderly widow and a young married man farming similar holdings. Nevertheless, in any given setting it is assumed that role expectations (norms) will impose a certain regularity on behaviour. By observing the behaviour of individuals pursuing an occupation, it should therefore be possible to identify clusters of tasks, responsibilities and relationships which amount to ideal role types.

This aper describes findings of a survey carried out in 1979. The aim was to c f ocument activities of English farm women, collect background information which might help to account for variations in roles and explore any problems arising from the position of women in farming today. As this was only intended as a pilot study and as it was felt desirable to interview subjects at length and in depth, no attempt was made to draw a large or random sample. Contacts were made on the basis of personal acquaintance or recommendation in the expectation

168

that the subjects would be cooperative, articulate and in sympathy with the aims of the research. The women were interviewed at home by the writer. Interviews normally lasted between forty minutes and an hour and involved a mixture of structured, semistructured and open ended questions.

In the event the sample was certainly not representative, being biased towards large farms, women actively involved in farming and women with agricultural qualifications. The weakness of the method used was that the sample was small and unrepresentative, points which could easily be remedied in any follow up study. Its strength lay in the intensity of response it invoked, the wealth of information and depth of insight it yielded on roles of women on farms.

The farms, drawn from southern counties of England, ranged from under five to over two hundred hectares. They included such enterprises as dairying, extensive livestock rearing, intensive rearing and fattening, cereal growing and intensive cultivation of fruit, hops and vegetable crops. The respondents themselves were equally varied, although all forty-four of them were or had been farmers or wives of farmers and farm managers. Their ages ranged from under thirty to nearly eighty. They came from the country and the city. Some had university degrees, some had other qualifications or training and some had none. Previous non-farm occupations ranged from the law and scientific research through teaching, nursing and secretarial work to unskilled jobs. Six women had paid employment off the farm at the time of the survey, four in branches of teaching and two as assistants to professional men.

The woman’s role on a farm is likely to be influenced by the size of her family and stage of the family cycle. Only one of the forty-four respondents was unmarried and three couples had no children. The remaining forty women had produced 108 children between them. The largest family consisted of five children.

Nine respondents were in the first stage of the family cycle, having children under eight years of age who demanded a great deal of attention and competed with farm work for the woman’s time. Eleven came into the second stage where, although no child had reached school leaving age, one or more children made a useful contribution to farm work. Relieved of some of her farm chores, the woman was able to devote more time to looking after her growing family. Fifteen women were in the position of having one or more children living at home but in employment. In twelve cases, a son or sons was farming in partner- ship with his parents. If they chose, women in this third stage of the family cycle could begin to take life easier or pursue outside interests.

169

The remaining nine women were in the final stage of the family cycle, where all children had left home and none seemed likely to return home to farm, or where there were no children and the woman was past childbearing. Here the women had less to d o in the house but less energy to devote to farm work.

IDEAL ROLE TYPES

By a process of trial and error, three constellations of activities, responsibilities and relationships were identified in the sample, amounting to three ideal role types. Main distinguishing features were frequency of manual work on the farm, responsibility for a farm enterprise, division of labour between husband and wife, participation in voluntary organisations and approach to housework.

The first role type, the f u m bouseun>, accounted for twenty women in the sample. (Pearson and Craig term this the farm homemaRer role). In this group there is a marked division of labour and interests between husband and wife. The woman is not expected to work regularly on the farm and is not responsible for any enterprise. She will probably be called u n at busy times like lambing, haymaking and harvest and is expecteEo lend a hand in emergencies. Being somewhat remote from daily events on the farm, she has little influence over short term management decisions. Her husband will probably ask her advice on major policy issues, such as buying or selling land or obtaining finance, but typically he will have ;he last word. The wife’s main contribution to the farm business is likely to be in doing farm accounts and office work, for which she may have sole responsibility, and in running errands, answering the telephone and seeing callers.

The farm housewife is a home centred person, regarding family and domestic responsibilities as her most important, most time consuming and often most enjoyable role. She makes much of housework; over half the farm housewives interviewed baked their own bread and typically they made clothes by hand, decorated the farmhouse and managed the garden. The farm housewife encourages her children to participate in sporting and cultural activities, transporting them if necessary. Any surplus time and energy are channelled into activities outside the home and farm. Five of the six respondents who had off farm employment were farm housewives. I t appeared that three of them worked in order to fulfil career aspirations rather than from economic necessity. Other farm housewives sought an outlet in voluntary activities. O n average they belonged to 3.4 formal organisations each, one woman being

170

active in no less than nine. Some participated in local government, school management and the local magistracy. Others supported community activities such as the Women’s Institute and supplemented state welfare services, for example by collecting for charity or delivering hot meals to the elderly.

Farm housewives value farm life because it means living in the country, in beautiful surroundings, enjoying peace, quiet and privacy. The worst aspects of farm life for them are having to bear the brunt of the husband’s farming worries and the fact that husbands are tied to the farm for long and unpredictable hours, making it difficult to plan family outings or take holidays.

The second ideal type, the working fawnwife, accounted for ten respondents. (This role corresponds with Pearson’s and Craig’s agn’- cultural helper). Her loyalties are divided between farm and home. While she spends part of every day working on the farm and probably prefers farm work to housework, she usually regards her domestic role as more important. She and her husband make a good team, working together for much of the time but with a clear division of tasks; for example the husband does the milking but the wife fetches the cows, feeds calves and cleans the dairy equipment.

The working farmwife is not usually responsible for a major farm enterprise, her role being rather that of assistant. Final responsibility for most short and medium term decisions rests with the man although the wife, being closely involved with the farm, may be consulted to a greater extent than the farm housewife. Working farmwives in the sample typically expected to have an equal voice in major farm policy issues. Like farm housewives, they also contributed to the farm business through helping with accounts and administration.

Working farmwives rarely have help in the house. Unlike farm housewives, they tend to regard housework as an imposition and try to keep chores to a minimum. At least half the working farmwives interviewed would have preferred less housework. Typically, they are not interested in voluntary activities either; six of those interviewed belonged to none and the remaining four women had only Seven memberships between them.

Working farmwives in the survey derived most satisfaction from farm work itself with its variety, open air life and freedom. Typically these aspects are valued by farmers too, reflecting perhaps the good teamwork in this group. Sharing the husband’s work was also a source of satisfaction for some farmwives. The worst aspect of farm life to emerge from the survey was winter and bad weather, which working

171

farmwives hated because it meant having to work in wet and cold conditions.

The remaining fourtcen women in the sample played the role of woman fanner, a combination of Craig’s inaipmht operator, active partner and matriarch roles. These women were farm centred rather than home centred and almost without exception they regarded farming as their most time consuming, most important and most enjoyable activity. Like working farmwives they work regularly on the farm, probably spending more time outdoors than in, but unlike them they are more likely to manage enterprises themselves than to assist others. Division of responsibilities between husband and wife, if the woman’s husband is also a farmer, is not necessarily on sex stereotyped lines. Women farmers may excel at “masculine” tasks such as ploughing, tractor work or building repairs.

Women farmers have more influence than other women over farm management decisions. Like others they do their share of office work and administration but typically with more autonomy. All but one of the women farmers interviewed was a legal rtner cornpared with half

working farmwives, half the women farmers in the sample would have preferred less housework, some employing part ame domestic help. Unlike working farmwives but like farm housewives, they were active supporters of voluntary organisations with 2.9 memberships per head. Whereas farm housewives gave most support to community and wo- men’s organisations, almost half the women farmers’ memberships were in farming associations, an extension of their professional role.

Women farmers value farming for the same reasons that male farm- ers do, for the life itself, independence and the pride of winning a good reputation as a farmer. Making the farm pay, managing the business and handling relations with the public or with difficult workers were, for them, the most challenging aspects of farm life.

the working farmwives and fewer than ha1 r the farm housewives. Like

DETERMINANTS OF ROLE TYPES

Sociologists tap different levels of explanation to account for variations in sex roles. Young and Willmott (1973) use stages of industrialisation and Frankenberg (1966) of urbanisation while Hannan and Katsiaouni (1977) in their study of Irish farm families, stress the independent influence of emotional empathetic bonds between spouses in structur- ing conjugal relationships. In the present study, explanation is sought at the level of family and social network. This implies that farm women

172

learn what roles are expected of them through processes of socialisation and interaction.

Socio-economic status, a combination of farm size and social back- ground, appeared to discriminate betwecn the traditional roles of farm housewife and working farmwife in the empirical study. Cutting across socio-economic status, the woman’s prior choice of farming as a career seemed to distinguish non-traditional women farmers from the rest.

Size of business alone could explain much of the difference in roles between working farmwives and farm housewives. Farms in the sample where the woman played the role of working farmwife averaged only 36 hectares. No regular labour was employed outside the family, five of the ten farmers having none but their wives to help with daily tasks. Working on the farm every day with their husbands, these wives are in a position to share decisions, even if final authority rests with the husband. Being deeply committed to the farm and with family and household making further demands, working farmwives have little time or inclination to take part in voluntary activities off the farm. Here it could be said that the woman’s role is largely dictated by necessity; she has to work on the farm if the family is to remain in agriculture. Since over three quarters of the agricultural holdings in Britain are without full time paid help, and since the proportion in continental Europe is higher still, the working farmwife is probably the pre- dominant role for European farmers’ wives today.

Where respondents in the survey played the farm housewife role, farms averaged 30 hectares. Wi th 3.3 pcrsons on average working regularly on the farm and with all but thrce farmers having at least one other man regularly available wives were only called in emergencies. Feeling somewhat redundant on the farm, the farm housewife focuses her creative energies on children, home and garden. If these do not satisfy, she seeks an outlet in voluntary organisations or a career off the farm. I t is only on large farms that the farmer’s wife has the option of not doing manual wotk. Such farms arc in the minority in Britain, although very significant in terms of their share of production. In other

rts of Europe, the capitalist farm supporting the farm housewife must C comparatively rare. Other socio-economic factors reinforce role differences between

farmers’ wives on small and larger farms. Working farmwives in the sample came predominantly from working class backgrounds where manual or routine non-manual occupations for women would be the norm. Only one working farmwife in the sample held any kind of qualification, typical occupations before marriage being shop assistant

173

and waitress. Farm housewives, on the other hand, came mainly from middle class homes where women would not be expected to do manual work. Seventeen of the twenty had trained for careers and typically they had worked as teachers, secretaries or nurses before marriage.

Joining voluntary organisations, a characteristic of farm housewives, could also be regarded as a middle class trait. It was thought unlikely that many of the working farmwives in the sample would have aspired to join the county executive of the Women’s Institute, the school board or the magistrates’ bench, even if they had had time and oppor- tunity.

The husband’s status at marriage, a reflection of socio-economic status, could also contribute to role differences between farm housewives and working farmwives. It is suggested that the woman’s chances of playing an active role in the farm business will be greater if she and her husband start farming together, after marriage, than if she marries a man who is already farming on his own.

Small farms cannot usually provide a livelihood for more than one family. This means that only one son stands to inherit and he must wait for his father to retire or die. The larger the family business, the greater the probability that sons wishing to farm can be taken into partnership or established in farms of their own during the father’s lifetime. Assuming they marry at about the same age, sons from large farms will be more likely than sons from small farms to be farming independently before marriage.

While most husbands of respondents came from farming families, half the farm housewives but fewer of the working farmwives had married established farmers. Where the husband was already in control of the farm business and the wife not familiar with it, opportunities for her to influence management decisions were limited. Having the hus- band’s parents or brother farming in partnership with him was an added constraint in some cases. O n the other hand only three working farmwives had married established farmers, the remaining seven couples acquiring farming status after marriage. In these circumstances wives had more scope to take an active part in farm work and influence management decisions.

Whatever the explanation, the tendency for wives’ involvement in the farm to decline as size of business increases, is familiar in Britain and elsewhere. Two British national surveys have shown the proportion of wives doing farm work and the number of hours contributed to decrease with increasing size of business (Agriculture EDC, 1772; Britton and Hill, 1975). Msrkeberg noted that Danish wives on larger

174

farms tended to do only housework while wives on smaller farms were more likely to assist husbands on the farm (Merkeberg, 1978), a finding mirrored in a recent East Anglian study (Newby et al, 1978), although recent evidence from Wisconsin seems to suggest the reverse (Wilkening and Ahrens, 1979). Earlier studies from Wisconsin (Wilkening and Bharadwaj, 1368) and from British Columbia (Sawer, 1973) suggest that as size of business increases, wives tend to become less involved in farm decisions and husbands in household decisions.

To understand why some women play the role of farmer rather than more traditional feminine roles, we need to explain why they choose farming as a career, this being the highest common factor among women farmers in the sample. In terms of size of farm business, this group was the most diverse. It included both the smallest farms, where the woman would have been expected to help with the daily chores, and the largest labour employing farms, where the woman might have been expected to retreat to the farmhouse. Eleven of the fourteen women farmers had decided on farming careers independent of marriage and had gained practical farming experience, eight having been. to agricul- tural college. Agricultural training and prior farming experience were not the rule for other respondents. Six of the women farmers were daughters of farmers and four had succeeded to family holdings. Significantly, none of these women had brothers and it is likely that they had been socialised to take the place of sons. Other farmers’ daughters in the sample, socialised more conventionally, played the farmer’s wife role in a more traditional, feminine way.

Socialisation and inheritance were not the com lete answer, for there

to agricultural college and two had trained for other male dominated professions - the law and scientific research. Typically these women were from upper middle class homes, their fathers being professionals or city business executives. As girls they had been encouraged by parents to pursue careers of their own choice and they attended the kind of school which believed in careers for girls, even in the 1930s or 1940s. In this respect they seemed to differ from the more traditional farmers’ wives, socialised to believe that marriage and motherhood were the ultimate goals for women.

In societies where by tradition men make farming decisions and undertake the more skilled tasks while women are expected to assist only if asked, the woman farmer is deviant. Social sanctions are likely to be incurred by individuals or couples who offend the social norms in this way. Yet social sanctions are usually less effective against outsiders,

were eight other women farmers not from farm P amilies. Five had been

175

for several reasons. First, outsiders may be granted some licence on grounds of ignorance. Second, outsiders may have adopted the norms of some other social grou and, confident of conforming to those rules, can afford to disregarg local expectations. Third, being less tightly enmeshed in the network of local social relationships than the natives, they are less vulnerable to attack. In this connection it was noteworthy that women farmers were not as deeply rooted in the local community as other women. Fewer than 30 per cent of women farmers in the sam Ie were married to locally born husbands, in contrast to 70 per cent of P arm housewives and 80 per cent of working farmwives. It was perhaps indicative, too, that all the women who professed to be igno- rant of or indifferent to local opinion about farm women’s roles, were women farmers.

SOCIALISATION FOR SUCCESSION

The farmer’s wife has a crucial role to play in succession. As well as producing a suitable heir for the family business, she is in a position to influence his acceptance or rejection of that role. That women have this power was demonstrated in a study of dairy farming families in New South Wales. Some wives, dissatisfied with the depressed state of the dairy industry, were persuading children not to follow in their fathers’ footsteps (Bell and Nalson, 1974).

Half the sons in the present sample who had completed full time education were already working in agriculture, all but one on the family holding. Taking all sons old enough to express a preference, it appeared that more than half were interested in farming. Only four respondents suggested that daughters might take over the farm; in three cases there were no sons in the family. In the survey, only women were interviewed and the information they supplied about children’s career plans may have been biased. In the present context, however, women’s aspirations for their children are more revealing than the children’s own wishes.

Six out of eight sons of working farmwives in the sample were already working on the farm at home. All sons but one, including those still at school, reputedly showed an interest ih farming. Most husbands of working farmwives came from local farming families and the parents seemed anxious not to destroy the family tradition. As one mother put it, she had no ambition for her sons to do anything but work at home where she knew they would be happy.

Half the adult sons of farm housewives, too, were farming and it seemed to be generally accepted that younger children would develop

176

an interest in farming as they grew up. Farm housewives were in favour of sons succeeding to the family farm where the inheritance was substantial and local ties strong. Only sons without prospects of a viable inheritance and without local ties had left farming.

Only two of the eight adult sons of women farmers were themselves farming and the interest in farming among schoolboy sons, as reported by their mothers, was noticeably lower than in the other groups. At first this seemed a surprising result, for where both parents farmed, it was predicted that parental pressure on the children to do likewise would be exceptionally strong. Further reflection suggests the women farmers may have been more understanding than other mothers, more realistic or perhaps more self interested.

Women farmers and their husbands were less likely than other couples to have come from a farming background. Some had chosen farming as a career despite the absence of family connections and assistance, even in the teeth of parental opposition. Couples whose own farming status was more achieved than ascribed, should be in a position to understand if children aspired to different occupations. Besides this, women farmers probably had a better grasp than other mothers of trends in the farming industry. Being under no illusion that farming would provide an easy or secure livelihood in the future, some were consciously urging children to broaden their horizons. Two women who were farming successfully on a large scale, maintained that they would only permit sons or daughters to join them in partnership if they had qualified for other occupations first.

If a son comes into partnership with his parents, he will be likely to usurp part of his mother’s authority without necessarily detracting from his father’s. This seemed to have occurred with some families in the sample. If a woman has had a hard struggle to win acceptance as a farmer in her own right and if she is active and enjoying the life, she may well not be anxious for a son to join the partnership at the earliest opportunity. The spectacle of elderly farmers holding firmly to the reins and refusing to retire in favour of their sons is a familiar one to agricultural economists and rural sociologists. The present findings suggest that stubborn old farmers are not necessarily all men.

POSSIBLE TRENDS

The classification of role types developed in this paper bears some resemblance to Bott’s three atterns of conjugal role relationships (Bott, 1957). Con$ementury ro P e relationships occur where husband and

177

wife, working closely together, have different activities which nevertheless fit together to form a whole. This seems to be typified by the good teamwork of working farmwives and their husbands. In- dependent role relationships imply that activities are carried out sepa- rately by husband and wife with the minimum of reference to one another. But for their involvement in the farm office and occasional help on the farm, this might apply to farm housewives and their husbands. For couples with a joint role relationship, there is no sharp division of labour on sex stereotyped lines. Tasks may be carried out by either spouse at different times while major decisions are usually shared. This comes closest to the woman farmer role, although the fit is not perfect.

Bott developed ideal types in a static framework, applying them to division of labour between urban couples within the home. Other sociologists have tried to introduce a dynamic element. Young and Willmott (1973), for instance, related complementary role relationships to pre-industrial society and independent role relationships to industrial society, suggesting that joint conjugal role relationships must be the pattern of the future. Frankenberg (1966) placed Bott’s ideal types on a mral-urban continuum. Isolated, traditional farming families where spouses played complementary roles were at one end and cosmopolitan families with joint role relationships at the other. He, too, implied a unidirectional shift towards the modern type of family.

Despite these persuasive hypotheses, Hannan and Katsiaouni discovered that the end point of change for Irish farm women was not the modern liberated woman role but the housewife role model which is assumed to be characteristic of the urban middle class. Contemporary French Canadian farmers’ wives, too, appear to rate family and marital values higher than individual, feminist values (AFEAS, 1977).

The present study, too, throws some doubt on the direction of future trends. Contrary to expectation, women farmers tended to be the oldest and farm housewives the youngest in the sample. Six farm housewives (30 per cent) but only two women farmers (14 per cent) were under forty while women farmers accounted for the greatest number of over sixties. Since the sample was so small, it is risky to draw conclusions, but one suggestion might be that women’s roles in farming could in some cases vary over the course of the family cycle. Seven farm housewives (35 per cent of the sample) but only one woman farmer (7 per cent) were in the first stage of the family cycle, where the necds of young children make it very difficult for the woman to devote the

178

necessary physical and mental energy to running a farm. Later in the family cycle, some women have the role of farmer thrust upon them by the death of their spouses. Two women farmers in the sample were widows who had taken a more active part in running the farm since their widowhood.

The direction of change need not be towards any of the ideal role types identified in this study. Multiple job holding by male farm operators is increasing in all industrialised nations while studies in Australia (Miiller, 1978), the United States (Huffman, 1976) and Denmark (Msrkeberg, 1978) reveal that the participation of farmers’ wives in off farm employment is rising too. The typical farm family of the future could be a part time farming family in which one s

roles will not necessarily be determined by sex. manages the farm while the other works elsewhere. Allocation o rse these

REFERENCES

A=& (L‘association feminine d’education n d’action uxiak) , (1977), La femme collabo- ntrice du man dans unc cntrcprix i hut lucratif. 1975-76. (Montreal, Canada; AFEAS).

AGRICULTURE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMI’ITEE, (1972), Agricultural Manpower in England and Wales. (London: HMSO).

BELL J. H. & J. S. NALSON (1974), Occupational and Residential Mobility of Ex-Dairy h e r s o n the North Coast of New South Waks. (Armidale, New South Walcs: University of New England Department of Sociology).

MTT. E. (1975). Family and Social Network. (London: Tavistock Publications). BRIITON. D. K. h B. HILL (1975). Sire and Efficiency in Farming. (Funborough,

BRITTON. D . K. (1979), Age Structure of Farmers in UK, 1975. Unpublished paper. CRAIG. R. A. (1979). “Down on the farm: rok conflicts of Australian farm women”. T h

Waran in Comtty Australia LL& Ahad. (Warragul. Victoria, Australia: McMilhn Run1 Studies Centre).

FRANKENBERG, R. (1%). Communities in Britain. (Harmondsworth, Middlescx: Penguin Books).

HANNAN. D. F. & L. A. KA’ISIAOUNI (1977). Traditional Families? From Culturally Pmcribcd to Negotiated Roles in Farm Families. (Dublin, Ireland: Economic and Social Research Institute), Paper 87.

HARRISON. A. (1971). Farmers and Farm Businesses in England. (Reading University: Department of Agricultural Economics and Management). Miscellaneous Study 62.

HUFFMAN, W . E. (1976), “Thc value of productive timc of farm wives: Iowa. North Grol ina, and Oklahoma”, American Journal o/ Agricultural EsonariCr, 58 ( 5 ) .

MBRKEBERG, H. (1978). “Working conditions of womcn married to rlfemploycd farm-

MULLER, P. (1978). Dairy Farming on the North Coast of New South Wales: Social

Hampshire: Saxon H o w ) .

836-841.

ers”, Sw‘obgia RWU~J, 18 (2/3): 95-106.

Change, Occupational Mobility and Future Dcvelopmcnt. (Armidale, New South Waks: University of New England Department of Sociology), Oavional Publi- cation 1.

NEWBY. H., C. BEU. D. ROSE & P. SAUNDERS (1978). Property, Paternalism and Power. (London: Hutchinson).

PEARSON. J. (1979), “Note on fcmale farmers”, Rurul Socio&gy, 44 (1): 187-200. SAWER. B. J. (1973), “Predictions of the farm wife’s involvement in general management

and adoption decisions”, Rural Soriology, 38 ( 4 ) : 412426. SPARROW, T. D. (1972), “The usc of agricultural manpower”, Journal o/ Agricultural

hborrrSrimre 1 (2): 3-10. WILKENING. E. A. & L. K. BHARADWAJ (1368). “Aspirations and task involvement as

related to &cision-making among farm husbands and wives”, Rural Soriology, 33 (1): 3045.

WILKENING. E. A. & N. AHRENS (1979), “lnvolvemcnt of wiva in hrm asks as rclated to characteristics of the firm, the family and work off the fum”, Unpublishcd paper.

YOUNG. M. & P. W I L L M O ~ ~ (1973), The Symmetrical Family. (London: Routledge and Kcgan Paul).

SUMMARY

Women have a significant part to play in British agriculture by maintaining and reproducing the labour force, assisting in farm pro- duction, decision making and business administration and helping to improve the quality of life in rural areas. It is hypothesised that individuals will vary in the importance they attach to these activities. A survey of forty-four farmers’ wives and women farmers in southern England revealed t h m ideal role types, distinguished by frquency of manual work, responsibility for farm enterprises, division of labour between husband and wife, approach to housework and participation in local voluntary organisations. Socio-economic status and prior social- isation are used to account for role differences among farm women. Some doubt is cast on the suggestion that the direction of change is necessarily towards the modern, liberated role of woman farmer.

RBUMB

Les femmes ont 1 jouer un r61e significatif dans l’agriculture britan- nique: reproduire et entretenir la force de travail; aider 1 la production elle-mime, 1 la dicision et 1 la gestion de l’entreprise; et aussi contribuer 1 amiliorer la qualiti de la vie dans les kgions rurales. L‘auteur fait I’hypothise que les individus accordent une importance variable 1 ces diverses activitts. A partir d’une enquete aupris de quarantequatre fermieres et ipouses de fermiers du Sud de I’Angleterre, on peut mettre 1 jour trois types de r6les idiaux, en se basant sur la frquence du travail

180

manuel, la responsabilitt dans I’entreprise agricole, la division du travail entre homme et femme, la place accord& au travail domestique, et la participation aux associations volontaircs locales. C’est le statut socio- Cconome et la prime socialisation qui rendent compte de ces difftrences de role parmi les femmes du milieu agricole. Ceci conduit i mettre en doute I’idie que l’tvolution va niccssaircment vers un modile de femme modernc et lib&&.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

Frauen 11aben in der britischen Landwirtschaft eine bedeutende Rolle zu spielen durch Erhaltung und Reproduktion der Arbeitskfiftc, Mithilfe bei der landswirtschaftlichen Produktion, Treffen von Entscheidungen und Verwaltungsaufgaben im Unternehmen sowie Mithilfe bei der Verbesserung der Lebensqualitat in landlichen Rhmen. Es wird die Hypothese aufgestellt, daD sich Individuen danach unterscheiden lassen, welche Bedeutung sie diesen Tatigkeiten zumessen. Durch eine Befragung von 44 Ehefraucn von Landwinen und weiblichen Betriebsleitern in Sudengland wurdcn drei idealtypische Rollen nach- gcwicscn, die sich nach Haufigkeit dcr Mitarbeit im Betrieb, Verant- wortlichkeit fur das landwirtschaftliche Unternehmen, Arbeitsteilung zwischen Mann und Frau, Einstellung tur Hausarbeit und Beteiligung in ortlichen, freiwilligen Vereinigungen unterscheiden. Sotialoko- nomischer Status und friihere Sozialisation wurden zur Erkkrung von Rollenunterschicdcn bei Frauen in der Landwirtschaft herangezogen. Es werden Zweifel gdul3ert uber die Aussage, da13 die Vednde- rungstendenzen notwendigerueisc in Richtung auf eine modernc, un- abhangige Rolle der Frau in der Landwirtschaft hinauslaufen.