Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
23
Boiss criticism here is, in my view, very much to the point. It could be
extended far beyond Brenners work to the entire legacy of classical
Marxism.
The feminist challenge to Marxismwith which my own work is
concernedalso demands that this great evasion be squarely faced.4 A
central demand of the womens liberation movement is for women
themselves to gain full control over their reproductive capacities, and
intense political struggles continue to rage over this issue. As the slogan
control of our bodies, control of our lives suggests, women can never
control their lives in a full sense until they gain control of their own
biological capacities. We can state this proposition obversely: the social
control of women is centered upon the control of their reproductive
capacities in a vast range of societies. If this generalization is valid, then
the conclusion seems to me inescapable: there are compelling feminist
reasons for paying close attention to the demographic regulators of
womens fertility and to their change over time. And yet, there has been
surprisingly little attention paid by feminists to the field of demography.
Conversely (though much less surprising) demographers have largely
ignored the burgeoning feminist scholarship of the past decade. Even a
brief perusal of the principal English-language journals in the field
(Demography, Population Studies, and Population and Development Review)
will demonstrate that feminist perspectives and debates are rarely
acknowledged, much less taken seriously, in their pages. One would
never guess, reading these journals, that childbearing was a sex-specific
and gender differentiated process.
While feminist critics of malestream Marxism5 have sought to shift and
supplement Marxisms traditional focus on production with a decisive
emphasis on reproduction, this has not been conceived in explicitly
demographic terms. There has been a real breakthrough in the feminist
study of mothering, together with speculative explorations of the
immense implications of mens abstention from early childcare, yet little
progress has been made on the closely related problem of forging a
feminist analysis of the social regulation of fertility.6
3 Against the Neo-Malthusian Orthodoxy, Past and Present, No. 79 (May 1978), pp. 6768,
Bois is a Marxist whose own work, La Crise de la Feodalisme (Paris 1976), has drawn
accolades even from Ladurie. He begins his commentary by praising Brenners attack on
the neo-Malthusian orthodoxy.
4
My doctoral thesis, recently completed at the University of Toronto, sketches the daily
and generational reproduction cycles of labour-power through household, family and kin
relations in the slave, feudal and capitalist modes of production. Therein I advance a much
fuller elaboration of a revised mode of production concept than I have been able to present
below, including a consideration of the question of patriarchal domestic relations.
5
This is Mary OBriens neologism (The Politics of Reproduction, London 1981); I have been
most fortunate to work with her at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education.
6
On mothering, cf. Nancy Chodorow, The Reproduction of Mothering, Psychoanalysis and the
Sociology of Gender, Berkeley 1978; Adrian Rich, Of Woman Born, New York 1976; and
24
27
The opportunity to study with David Levine has contributed importantly to my thinking
here, although he should not be implicated in any of the synthesis essayed in the following
pages.
12 See Heidi Hartman, The Unhappy Marriage of Marxism and Feminism: Towards a
More Progressive Union, in L. Sargent (ed.), Women and Revolution, London 1981.
28
The biological limit-condition of fecundity, of course, operates also and fluctuates over
time and living conditions, but we treat this as a precondition to these social and economic
constraints.
14 This incentive structure is established for reproductive couples at the level of the
household as a pooling-sharing unit; this is the unit that assumes the costs of its dependant
members, and stands to benefit from the eventual contribution of children. The specification of this incentive structure in no sense implies, as human-capital theorists do, that the
interests of both partners are harmoniously aligned within the unitary household framework.
Clearly the costs and potential benefits of children are not symmetrically borne; womens
interests are regularly submergedsacrificed for the sake of the family. It is important to
specify this interior alignment without losing sight of the unitary household framework.
30
32
33
34
35
growth much before the second half of the nineteenth century when a
minimal infrastructure of running water, sewage and garbage disposal
was finally established in the teeming slums of these cities, with dramatic
improvements in the life expectancy of the labouring poor. Thus before
1850 the main sources of population growth cannot be found in the great
citiestheir expansion was due almost entirely to in-migration.
(2) From the Middle Ages, the agricultural zones of the European
countryside had been the primary source of population growth on the
continent. Age-specific fertility rates among peasants, cottars and day
labourers in agricultural villages do not appear to have risen much, if at
all, from 1750 to 1850, and in some regions (e.g., parts of France) they
definitely fell. The abatement of crisis mortality in the same period meant
that a significantly higher proportion of married adults survived their
reproductive years. The decline of mortality thus appears to be the
primary factor in triggering the population boom in these regions among
the agriculturally-based labouring classes.
(3) By far the fastest growing regions of Western Europe in the first
century of the demographic transition were those rural areas where
cottage industry mushroomed and new factory and mining towns sprang
up. The primary contributor to the unprecedented population boom of
these regions appears to have been a substantial rise in fertility rates.
The Proto-Industrial Rupture
The marital fertility rate of any population can be broken down into three
age-specific averages: (a) womens age at first birth (starting); (b) intervals
between births (spacing); and (c) age at last birth (stopping). The main
difference between the fertility of the proletarianizing populace of the
new industrial regions and the population of other regions appears to
have been in this first factor. There was a decrease of two to three years in
the average age at first marriage, a concomitant lowering of womens age
at first birth, and an increase in the number of births per completed
marriage. The proportion of the population ever marrying also rose, as
did the frequency of childbirth out of wedlock. These changes, in
combination, increased the birth rate of women under 25 dramatically.
(In peasant villages, by contrast, this rate remained very low.) As a result,
the average generational turnover period was abbreviated, and the
demographic expansion of one generation was compounded more
rapidly by the next.
Average intervals between births also appear to have shortened slightly
with proletarianization, but this compensation for increased infant and
child mortality in the new industrial towns probably did no more than to
offset the latters rise. The average age of working-class women at last
birth remained close to menopause and did not fall much before the last
quarter of the nineteenth century. In short, it was changes in the age and
frequency of marriage itself which played the pivotal role in inaugurating
the new proletarian fertility regime.
While adult mortality may have improved slightly among proletarian
populations, infant and child mortality rates certainly did not, remaining
36
France was the exception to this pattern: its national fertility rate was in decline for at least
a century before the rest of Western Europe. There have been many attempts to account for
Frances precocity in this regard. My hunch is that it was due to the peculiar uneveness of the
bourgeois revolution in France, which was uniquely advanced on the political and cultural
fronts while being relatively backward in socio-economic terms. The French peasantry
remained firmly ensconced on the land throughout the nineteenth century and the rate of
proletarianization was relatively slow. As a result, the prolific capacity of the rural masses,
damned up by the land-niche system of the ancien regime, was not unleashed in the way that it
was elsewhere, most notably in England. On the other hand, the French Revolution
profoundly altered the culture and consciousness of the toiling masses, urban and rural,
reaching deep into the peasantry. Cultural modernism and a particular form of secular
rationalism took root in the French countryside almost a century before the advent of
universal schooling. French peasants began to practice birth control in marriage on a
widespread basis (with the tacit acquiescence of village priests) long before peasants or
proletarians did elsewhere in either Protestant or Catholic countries. Since Frances fertility
began to decline earlier than in other countries of Western Europe, its transition to low
fertility was a gradual and protracted process; however, it should be noted that fertility rates
in France did fall considerably (22%) in the 18701900 period when rates in other nations
were beginning their more rapid descent.
25
Within the space constraints of this article, I am dealing with immense and variegated
classes as unitary social blocs, as if there were a single fertility regime for each class. Reality,
of course, is more complicated, but such complexity need not defeat the conceptual
framework outlined here. Consider the question of richer and poorer strata within the
peasantry and the proletariat: Under the ancien regime, the richer strata of the peasantry, with
more land and a greater need for family labour-power, tended to have larger families than
37
This then is a very rough sketch of the late feudal village of dependent
peasant cultivators. Since marriage here was tied to the limited
availability of arable land by virtue of patriarchal control and the relative
absence of alternatives, and neo-locality was the norm, marriage was
characteristically late and non-universal.28 The primary mode of fertility
regulation in these circumstances was at the first level outlined above:
where marriage itself was blocked and delayed, and women, on average,
bore no children for the first twelve to fourteen years of their fertile
life-phase, until their mid or late twenties. This then was the nuptiality
valve, eased or tightened in relation to the availability of land (or
alternative employmentsmore and more prevalent in the eighteenth
century).
The incentive equation within marriage (patriarchally biased by patrilineal concerns) initially weighed strongly in favour of having children to
work on the farm, to inherit the holding (males preferably), and to care
for parents in old age. But not too many children; since all those who were
not in line to inherit the land constituted an eventual drain upon its chattel
wealth, compelling the provision of dowries and other forms of
pre-mortem inheritance. However, with the means of birth control being
rudimentry and culturally discouraged or forbidden, it was difficult for
couples to stop reproducing in their mid and late thirties, when they had
reached what they might have regarded as an ideal family size. Birth
spacing was easier to manage, and was in evidence in many areas; at the
will of womenone assumesinsisting on abstinence, or through
28 J. Hajnal in a seminal article (European Marriage Patterns in Perspective, in Population
in History: Essays in Historical Demography, D.V. Glass and D.E.C. Eversely [eds.], London
1965, pp. 10143) first identified a distinctive Western European marital pattern
characterized by late (23 years and over) and non-universal (90% or less) marriage. He
detected such a pattern west of a line from Trieste to Leningrad as far back as the
seventeenth century; to the east, marriage occurred somewhat earlier and was more
universal. Subsequent research has tended to confirm Hajnals findings, while bending his
line of demarcation somewhat to include Estonia and Poland in the eastern region. As one
would expect, different marriage patterns are bound up with divergent norms of household
formation, co-residence and inter-generational wealth transfer. While in the West,
neolocality prevailed and nuclear family households were the norm; in the East, patrilocality
was customary in many regions and compound family forms of co-residence and
co-operative production were commonplace.
It is unclear whether the Western European marriage pattern originated in the
Middle Ages or was a product of later developments. It may well have been coincident with
a distinctive manorial infrastructure comprised of the three-field strip system and nucleated
village settlement, coupled with a strong tendency to local endogamy. Michael Mitterauer
and Richard Seider (The European Family: Patriarchy to Partnership from the Middle Ages to the
Present, Oxford 1982) posit that extensive changes in the agrarian structure brought about
by the colonizing movement of the High Middle Ages were confined precisely to those areas
in which the European marriage pattern and corresponding family forms developed. (p. 38)
The East/West difference in marital norms and family forms was probably related to the
differentiation in prevailing modes of seigneurial exploitation, originating in the generalized
crisis of the feudal order in the fourteenth century. While labour services on the lords
demesne tended to be commuted to product and money rents in the West, in Eastern
Europe the corve persisted. These divergent trends in the mode of exploitation appear to
have fostered different patterns of land/labour-power equilibration. In the East, land tended
to be redistributed around cyclical fluctuations in the size and dependency ratio of the
co-resident family group; land integrity being safeguarded through the vertical extension of
this group. In the West, land integrity was maintained through the delay and deterrence of
marriage, and the labour-power of youth was redistributed between farmsteads through the
institution of domestic service.
40
prolonged lactation and active nursing, much more than the sexual
self-discipline of men.
Proto-Industrial Households
Note here how changes in the dominant mode of production profoundly alter settlement
patterns and densities. Throughout the Middle Ages in the feudal-manorial zones of the
European countryside population built up on the best arable, and then extended out onto
marginal lands in smaller and sparcer settlements. In the early modern era, as simple
commodity production under the sponsorship of mercantile capitalism mushroomed in the
countryside, population tended to build up most heavily on the poorest arable, overflowing
into the new industrial towns nearby. The population density pattern was thus completely
inverted in the transition from feudalism to capitalism.
30 In the traditional agrarian villages, artisans tended to marry earlier than peasants, but not
as early as their counterparts in open proto-industrial villages or new towns (Medick, op.
cit., pp. 8586). In this sense, they stood in between the peasant and proto-industrial
patterns being presented here. This is a simple illustration of the general principle that one
should never isolate class relations from regional context in analysing household forms and
fertility regimes. The prevailing mode of production operative in a region always
conditions the dynamics of subsidiary modes and does not permit their full developmental
logic to unfold.
41
and indifferent to the familys overall subsistence situation. For proletarians, then, the specific employment prospects for children were key in
shifting the fertility incentive structure. Whereas proto-industrial families could always count on being able to set their children to work
productively at a very young age, proletarian families could not.
Finally, it appears that the rate of infant mortality was higher for early
proletarians than for other labouring classes throughout the late
eighteenth and first half of the nineteenth centuries, as the slums of the
new industrial towns were ecological disaster zones with contaminated
water supplies, open sewage, and so on. Epidemic disease took a frightful
toll of infants and young children. If urban proletarians were not then
poorer than the rural masses, they were nevertheless living in a much
more lethal environment and their mortality rates were higher. There
appears to have been a strong compensatory impulse in these circumstances to shorten birth spacing and reduce, as well, the average duration
of breast-feeding, or to farm it out to a wetnurse; all of which contributed
to an escalating fertility rate. The combination of high fertility and infant
mortality thus made for an enormous squandering of womens labourpower, exhausting them and debilitating their health.
Industrial capitalism in the moment of its triumphant breakthrough here
revealed its darker side. Private capitalists, under the whip of competition, displayed a ruinous indifference to the most elementary preconditions of the proletariats life-reproduction, and above all, to women,
forced to try to reconcile the antagonistic demands of the daily and
generational cycles of labour-power. Without tracing, in detail, the entire
causal chain, I want to suggest that there was an underlying, if mediated,
connection between the dominant (absolute) mode of capital accumulation in this period of primitive accumulation, which consumed labour
power extensively (prolonging the working day, utilizing child labour, and
forcing women to rise from childbearing prematurely), and the dominant
fertility regime of the proletariatwhich produced future labour power
extensively as well, within an enforced assertion of quantity over quality
as reflected in the character of the investment made in children.
Mature Proletarian Households
cant role in this shift.31 Birth intervals were not increasing either; an
increase in contraceptive use offset a decline in the incidence and duration
of breastfeeding, leaving birth-spacing essentially unchanged. So overwhelmingly, the decline was due to stopping on a mass scale, as couples
and/or wives evidently concluded that enough was enough once they
had borne two or three children.32 How can this transformation in
marital fertility be explained?
This question has provoked intense research and heated debate among
historical demographers, which I cannot possibly review here.33 I am
inclined to follow Caldwells lead in identifying the generalization of
compulsory schooling, and the effective termination of full-time child
labour, as the major institutional changes which furnished the socioeconomic impetus to long-term fertility decline.34 The termination of
child labour ended the family wage economy for urban proletarian
households and therefore fundamentally altered the cost/benefit equation
for raising children.
On the one hand, the prospective earning capacity of children living at
home was drastically curtailed. Regular school attendance greatly
reduced the time available for wage labour, and employers were legally
forbidden to hire children to work during school hours. Furthermore,
among children (particularly boys) with some education, parents could
no longer expect an automatic wage remission when they did eventually
go out to work as adolescents. The break-up of the family wage economy
deepened the fetishism of the wage form, which was increasingly seen to
belong, by rights, to the worker who earned it. This marked the
beginning of a secular transition to the modern norm, where the
acquisition of ones first full-time job is regularly associated with leaving
home and living on ones own.
On the other side of the ledger, per capita costs of raising children rose
sharply with the advent of universal schooling. Above and beyond school
31
We are here seeking to explain a fundamental fertility shift occurring within a mode of
production. As an indicative check on the conceptual model outlined above, it is important
to note that this change did not occur in step 1 conditions which demarcate the limits of
proletarian household formation within the capitalist mode of production. If they had, our
model would be suspect. The shift in fertility regime from peasant to proto-industrial and
early proletarian households did involve basic alterations in step 1 conditions, as we have
seen. This is, as expected, in passing from one mode of production to others.
32
The fertility decline was closely associated with a drop in infant mortality, but it has not
been demonstrated that the latter generally preceded or caused the former. What is clear is
that a decline in child mortality (one to five years) generally preceded the fertility decline in
Western Europe, and this change must have facilitated parity-dependent birth-control,
since couples could increasingly count on their existing children, having survived the first
year, living through to adulthood. (See The Effects of Infant and Child Mortality on Fertility,
Samuel H. Preston [ed.], New York 1978.)
33 The intensity with which this research has been conducted, and its capacity to attract
generous funding support from governments and private foundations, is hardly due to the
collective curiosity of historians. Rather, it has been animated by the desire to isolate a set of
factors which triggered the onset of the Wests historic fertility decline so that they might
somehow be reduplicated, or at least simulated, in Third World countries today in order to
engineer a comparable decline there. It comes as no surprise then to find the Rockefeller
Foundation as a major sponsor of such research.
34 Mass Education as a Determinant of the Timing of Fertility Decline, Population and
Development Review, 1980, 6(2), pp. 22555.
45
taxes, fees and other obvious expenses, formal education exerted intense
pressure on parents, often expressed through the demands of children
themselves, for the provision of better clothing, hygiene, nutrition and
medical care. The rise of schooling not only altered the economics of
child-raising, it also had a profound impact of the aspirations which
working-class parents held for their children. A good education was
what working-class parents tried to bequeath to their kids to help them
make their way in the world; and great sacrifices were made and justified
with the consoling thought that, with an education, their children might
at least be able to secure better jobs, and live in greater security, than they
had.
As stoppingthe cessation of childbirth well before menopause
became a general norm for working-class women, it seems reasonable to
infer that regular contraceptive use in marriage must have become
commonplace. Though the evidence is admittedly scanty (and much
more investigation in this area is required), there are grounds for
suggesting that, in stopping, masses of working-class women were
asserting their reproductive rights in an elementary sense. Information
was disseminated and support extended in this endeavour through
informal kin and friendship networks spreading out on a neighbourhoodby-neighbourhood basis. The formal and public tip of this iceberg was
evident in the formation of eugenics associations and the pervasive
distribution of birth-control pamphlets and books. In England, for
example, an estimated one million such tracts were sold between 1876 and
1891, and Annie Besants popular Law of Population, aimed specifically at
working-class women, went through some 110 editions!35
The sharp decline in marital fertility constituted, in effect, a fundamental
shift in the prevailing pattern of working-class investment in its future
generationfrom an enforced concern with quantity to one of quality.
Once again, I want to relate this transformation in the replacement cycle
of labour-power, to the dominant trends in labour-powers consumption
in industry and in capital accumulation, which shifted in the same period
from a regime of absolute to one of relative surplus-value extraction. In
other words, both the capital accumulation and the labour-power
reproduction cycles were converted from extensive to intensive modes of
regeneration.
As capital shifted from an absolute to a relative mode of surplus-value
extraction, major capitalists concentrated on intensifying the productive
exertions of adult male workers (primary breadwinners) in the key
industrial sectors. The employers relinquished, under considerable
pressure, child labour and the twelve and then the ten-hour day. This shift
to a higher male wage regime made it possible for a family of four to live
on a trade-union wage. A single (male breadwinner) model of labourpower consumption and remuneration altered the larger socio-economic
context within which proletarian couples were now keen to reduce family
size by stopping conception once two or three children had been born.
The unorganized labouring poor, sending their children to work at (or
35
See Fraser Harrison, The Dark Angel: Aspects of Victorian Sexuality, Glasgow 1979, chs.
911.
46
before) the legal school-leaving age, could not get by on the fathers
wage, and were much more inclined to go on and bear four or more
children. The wages of these offspring have continued to play a critical
role in family maintenance for many poor and single-parent families
down to the present day.
Conclusion
Third World formations today also furnish immense reservoirs of cheap and mobile
labour power. Why then is indigenous capital accumulation of the extensive type not
fostered there in the same fashion? To a limited extent it is, but the overriding drives of
metropolitan capital erect (and selectively remove) barriers to rapid multi-faceted
industrialization in these countries. On the eve of the Industrial Revolution of course,
Western Europe did not face such an imposing external force; its major states were already
imperialist powers in their own right. Such is the privilege of going first.
47