University of Helsinki Department of Sociology
NARESH CHANDRA SOURABH
THE CULTURE OF WOMEN'S HOUSEWORK A Case Study of Bihar, India
Academic Dissertation
To be presented with the permission of the Faculty of Social Sciences at the University of Helsinki for public examination in Auditorium XII, University Main Building, February 16th, 2008 at 10 o’clock.
Helsinki University Printing House Helsinki 2007
THE CULTURE OF WOMEN'S HOUSEWORK
University of Helsinki Department of Sociology
NARESH CHANDRA SOURABH
THE CULTURE OF WOMEN'S HOUSEWORK A Case Study of Bihar, India
Academic Dissertation
Helsinki University Printing House Helsinki 2007
Research Reports No. 253 Department of Sociology University of Helsinki
Copyright © Naresh Chandra Sourabh ISSN 0438-9948
ISBN 978-952-10-4497-7 (Paperback) ISBN 978-952-10-4498-4 (PDF)
Helsinki University Printing House, Helsinki 2007
In
Love, homage, and gratitude to
My Parents
Shree Late Ram Prasad Singh Shree Late Danyamati Devi My youngest brother and eldest sister
Shree Late Shambhu Shail Shree Late Shakuntala Who lived not to see this work!!!
Abstract
The Culture of Women's Housework—a Case Study of Bihar, India
This study examines gendered housework in India, particularly in Bihar. The perspective adopted in the study was in part derived from the data but also from sociological literature published both in Western countries and in India. The primary attention is therefore paid to modern and traditional aspects in housework.
The aim is not to compare Indian practices to those of Western societies, but rather to use Western studies as a fruitful reference point. In that light, Indian housework practices appear to be traditional. Consequently, traditions are given a more significant role than is usually the case in studies on gendered housework, particularly in Western countries. The study approaches the topic mainly from the socio-cultural perspective; this provides the best means to understand the persistence of traditional habits in India.
To get a wide enough picture of the division of labour, three methods were applied in the study: detailed time-use data, questionnaire and theme interviews. The data were collected in 1988 in two districts of Bihar, one rural and the other urban. The different data complement each other well but also bring to light contradictory findings: on a general level Biharian people express surprisingly modern views on gender equality but when talking in more detail (theme interviews) the interviewees told about how traditional housework practices still were in 1988.
In the analysis of the data set four principal themes are discussed. Responsibility is the concept by which the study aims at understanding the logic of the argumentation on which the persistence of traditional housework practices is grounded. Contrary to the Western style, Biharian respondents appealed not to the
principle of choice but to their responsibility to do what has to be done. The power of tradition, the early socialization of children to the traditional division of labour and the elusive nature of modernity are all discussed separately. In addition to the principle of responsibility, housework was also seen as an expression of affection.
This was connected to housework in general but also to traditional practices. The purity principle was the third element that made Biharian interviewees favour housework in general, but as in the case of affection it too was interwoven with traditional practices. It seems to be so that if housework is in general preferred, this leads to preferring the traditional division of labour, too. The same came out when examining economic imperatives. However, the arguments concerning them proved to be rational. In analysing them it became clear that the significance of traditions is also much dependent on the economics: as far as the average income in India is very low, the prevalence of traditional practices in housework will continue. However, to make this work, cultural arguments are required: their role is to mediate more smoothly the iron rules of the economy.
Key words: family, gendered housework, division of labour, responsibility, family togetherness, emotion, economy of housework, modernity, traditionality
Abstrakti
Naisten kotityön kulttuuri – tapaustutkimus Intian Biharista
Tutkimuksessa tarkastellaan sukupuolittunutta kotityötä Intiassa, erityisesti Biharissa. Tutkimuksen näkökulma perustuu osaksi tutkimusaineistoon, mutta myös sosiologiseen kirjallisuuteen, jota on julkaistu aiheesta sekä länsimaissa että Intiassa. Päähuomio kohdistuu kotityön moderneihin ja traditionaalisiin puoliin.
Tarkoitus ei ole kuitenkaan verrata intialaista käytäntöä länsimaisiin käytäntöihin, vaan pikemmin käyttää länsimaisia tutkimuksia hedelmällisenä viitekehyksenä.
Tässä valossa intialaiset kotityökäytännöt vaikuttavat perinteisiltä. Sen vuoksi perinteille annetaan tutkimuksessa merkittävämpi rooli kuin yleensä sukupuolittunutta kotityötä tutkittaessa on tapana, erityisesti länsimaissa. Aihetta lähestytään pääasiassa sosio-kulttuurisesta näkökulmasta käsin; se antaa parhaat välineet ymmärtää perinteisten tapojen säilymistä Intiassa.
Jotta kotityön jaosta saataisiin riittävän laaja kuva, tutkimuksessa käytettiin kolmenlaisia aineistoja: yksityiskohtaista ajankäyttöaineistoa, kyselylomaketta ja teemahaastatteluja. Aineisto kerättiin vuonna 1988 kahdella Biharin alueella, toinen maaseudulla ja toinen kaupungissa. Erilaiset aineistot täydentävät toisiaan hyvin, mutta ne myös tuovat esiin ristiriitaisia tuloksia: yleisellä tasolla biharilaiset ilmaisivat yllättävän moderneja näkemyksiä sukupuolten tasa-arvosta, mutta puhuessaan siitä yksityiskohtaisesti (teemahaastattelut) haastatellut paljastivat noudattavansa perinteistä työnjakoa kotitöissä. Näin siis vielä vuonna 1988.
Analyysi keskittyy neljään pääteemaan. Velvollisuus toimii käsitteenä, jonka avulla pyritään ymmärtämään sitä argumentaation logiikkaa, johon kotityön perinteiset käytännöt perustuvat. Toisin kuin länsimaissa biharilaiset vastaajat eivät vedonneet valinnan periaatteeseen vaan velvollisuuteensa tehdä sitä, mitä heidän tulee tehdä.
Perinteen vaikutusvalta, lasten varhainen sosiaalistaminen perinteiseen työnjakoon ja modernisuuden pakeneva luonne ovat ne komponentit, joiden välittämänä perinteisyytenä ilmenevää velvollisuutta tarkastellaan lähemmin. Sen lisäksi että kotityö nähtiin velvollisuutena, sen tärkeydestä puhuttaessa vedottiin myös kiintymykseen. Kotityötä pidettiin kiintymyksen osoituksena sellaisenaan, mutta erityisesti silloin, kun se noudattaa perinteistä työnjakoa. Kolmantena teemana tarkastellaan puhtauden periaatetta, joka sekin sai biharilaiset suosimaan kotityötä, mutta myös tässä tapauksessa erityisesti perinteisen työnjaon mukaista kotityötä.
Näyttää siltä, että jos kotityötä suositaan, se johtaa ikään kuin väistämättä perinteisyyden suosimiseen kotitöiden jaossa. Tämä tuli esiin edellisten lisäksi myös tarkasteltaessa neljättä teemaa eli taloudellisia ehtoja. Tässä tapauksessa perustelut olivat rationaalisia. Haastattelujen analyysi osoitti, että perinteiden sitkeys on riippuvainen myös taloudesta: niin kauan kun keskitulo on Intiassa hyvin alhainen, perinteisten käytäntöjen ylivalta kotityökäytännöissä jatkuu. Jotta tämä toimisi, tarvitaan lisäksi kulttuurisia perusteluja: niiden tehtävänä on pehmittää talouden rautaisia lakeja.
Avainsanat: perhe, sukupuolittunut kotityö, työnjako, velvollisuus, perheyhteisyys, tunne, kotityön talous, modernisuus, perinteisyys
Acknowledgements
The knowledge contained in this work has its roots in nature, family, social surroundings and educational institutions. Throughout my life nature has been an infinite source of my learning. The second sources were my mother and father, and both parents' families which proved to be of great help in schooling me; especially my father and mother, my maternal grandmother and middle uncle (father's brother) imprinted their wisdom on my mind. Thus, my beloved father Shree Late Ram Prasad Singh who was a popular teacher was not just my father, but also my first and true Guru. If the intellectual imprint on me and contribution to the growth of my knowledge are rooted in my family ties, institutional teachers from my earlier school time to university have helped me to be what I am now. Chronologically, their names are Shree Late Rajendra Prasad of Nagarnousa, Nalanda [Scholar of English and Hindi, Novelist, Essayist and Critics], Professor (Emeritus) Yogendra Singh, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi and Professor Riitta Jallinoja, University of Helsinki. These outstanding personalities from the world of academia developed my academic intellect and knowledge. So, nature, family and institutional teachers in association with social surroundings formed a triad to develop my academic life. Thus my first and foremost thanks and respect go to this triad.
The influence of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) campus atmosphere on the growth of my intellect and knowledge has undeniably been influential on my academic achievements and for this I am truly grateful to it. Among teachers at JNU, I enjoy naming Professor (Emeritus) Yogendra Singh, Professor Ravindra Kumar Jain and Professor C. N. Venugopal who inspired me to carry out my study abroad. Professor Singh's scholarly imprint can easily be found in my work. While I was a JNU student, I was impressed by his lucid lectures and seminars which were full of heavy argumentations and discussions, analysis and logic, whereas Professor
Jain impressed me with his sharp and sound criticism and deep analytical styles. I am really indebted and grateful to these three professors. I am also grateful to Professor Ehsanul Haq for his constant encouragement to finish my dissertation. I am greatly indebted and grateful to Professor Raj Pal Mohan, Auburn University, U.S.A. for counselling me about special skills for writing my work and always showing his enthusiasm for the progress of my dissertation.
At the Department of Sociology, University of Helsinki I am truly grateful to Professor (Emeritus) Erik Allardt who was my first supervisor. He provided great feedback on my work by commenting on the theoretical part of the early draft of the manuscript and giving strong arguments and discussions, and making me scientifically cautious at certain points, though at this time he was not my official supervisor. For expertise in my research area, I had to turn to Professor (Emerita) Elina Haavio-Mannila, and she supervised my study for a longer period. Under her great supervision, I attended my two post-graduate seminars and also prepared to be presented in the World Congress of Sociology in New Delhi, 1986. Professor Haavio-Mannila also arranged a fund from the Academy of Finland to conduct fieldwork and collect materials for this dissertation in 1988. Her persistent scholarly guidance, inspiration and encouragement led me to be ready with the early draft of this work in 1999. For all this I am indebted and grateful to Professor (Emerita) Elina Haavio-Mannila.
Professor (Emeritus) Tapani Valkonen's deep attention and constant guidance and encouragement as regards the methodological part of my research work were unforgettable. He was also often ready to write letters of recommendation to raise funds. In 2006, once in the corridor at the Department of Sociology he met me in a very pleasant mood and said, 'I wish you will complete your dissertation'. This made me so happy. For this all, I am very grateful and indebted to him.
I am grateful for the excellence of the former chairperson of the Department of Sociology Professor Kari Pitkänen's administration for providing me with much support in promoting and completing my dissertation. At the same time, I also
thank the present chairperson of the Department of Sociology, Professor Anssi Peräkylä. Also, my thanks go to many other people who have assisted me in various ways at the Department of Sociology: Ms Ritva Suorsa (former secretary), Ms Kati Mustala, Ms Marja Salo, Dr Tapani Alkula and also the participants of the two postgraduate Step-seminars for their valuable comments on my presentations.
My special thanks go to Dr Tapani Alkula for his great help in making this volume printed.
I remember all my family members because of their constant suffering and waiting to see this work complete, and the same questions were always echoed silently or verbally: 'When would I be completing my work that they would see?' In the course of constant suffering, many of my important family members and kin passed away. First my beloved youngest brother Shambhu Shail in1993, then my beloved parents Shree Late Ram Prasad Singh and Shree Late Dhanyamati Devi. After my beloved father passed away, still I was hopeful that at least my beloved mother would see my PhD work finished. But this wish was not met; my Maiya (Mother) suddenly passed away on the morning of January 9th, 2007 just after I had submitted my dissertation to the Faculty of Social Sciences for pre-examination.
This made me completely upset. To confess, all those who were eager for my work and suffered for the delay have left this world.
In addition to my beloved parents Shree Late Ram Prasad Singh and Shree Late Dhanyamati Devi, I am indebted to my brothers Shree Late Shambhu (youngest), Ashok and his spouse Smt Kusum Devi, and sisters — Shree Late Shakuntala (eldest passed away as a young girl), Smt Minaa Devi, Smt Kiran Devi and their spouses Shree Late Bhola Prasad and Shree Dharmendra Kumar and the children of my brother's and sisters', paternal grandparents Shree Late Mangru Das Gop, and Shree Late Mama, my grandfather's brother Shree Late Dhannu Das Gop [Bhagat] and maternal grandparents Shree Late Shree Das Gop and Shree Late Kangan Devi and my mother's brother Shree Late Ramvilas Prasad Singh and his wife Smt Tara Devi and mother's sisters Shree Late Janaki Devi and Smt Rukmini Devi as well as my paternal uncles — Shree Late Ramsharan Prasad, Shree Late
Haricharan Prasad and Shree Late Shiva Prasad. I greatly appreciate and thank my beloved wife Smt Kanchan Raj, whose contribution was immense.
I am also thankful to my JNU friends — Shree P. K. Karunakaran (Deputy Registrar, JNU), and Shree A. N. Kunjunny (Ex-Section Officer, JNU) for their encouragement to do my PhD abroad. In Helsinki I am grateful to my friends Mr Sunny Kwemtua Odum and Ms Regine Schön (Doctoral candidate of Psychology, University of Helsinki) for their honest encouragement to complete this work.
Also, my undisputable thanks go to Professor Timo Myllyntaus, University of Turku, Professor Klaus Karttunen, University of Helsinki and Mrs Iiris Niemi and Mr Hannu Pääkkonen, Statistical Centre, Finland, for their contributing role by providing valuable discussions.
To see this work in this form I am truly indebted to those who had participated in the time-use study and survey programmes. Also I am thankful to the volunteers for their excellent support in collecting my fieldwork materials for the study. On this occasion I may not forget remembering Shree Mithilesh Kumar of Molanipur, Patna whose family provided me with food to shelter and so on during my stay to collect fieldwork material from that rural area. I am thankful to them.
I wish to express my thanks to Professor (Emerita) Marjatta Marin, Department of Social Sciences and Philosophy, University of Jyväskylä and Docent Pekka Valtonen, Institute of Development Studies, University of Helsinki, the official pre- examiners of this dissertation. The comments of these pre-examiners have been most useful. I deeply appreciate Professor Ulla Vuorela, Department of Sociology and Psychology, University of Tampere, who honoured me by agreeing to be my examiner for the viva. I am also grateful to Secretary Ms Terhi Kulonpalo, the Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Helsinki for her kind help. For the language revision I thank Mr John Gage. I am also grateful for the financial support received from the Academy of Finland to do my fieldwork in Bihar in 1988. My acknowledgments also go to the Department of Sociology at the University of Helsinki for including this work in its publication series.
I wish to extend special gratitude to my dear supervisor Professor Riitta Jallinoja who has devoted selflessly and constantly a huge amount of time, energy and patience in order to supervise me in a special way and to read my manuscript several times in different stages and comment throughout to bring this work into the form it now is. It was a great opportunity for me to get Professor Riitta Jallinoja as my supervisor. Her special sociological knowledge has been stimulating throughout and has helped me to improve the design of the dissertation. As well, she was helpful in several other ways. For all this, I am truly indebted to her. I express my special humble gratitude to my dear Guru Professor Riitta Jallinoja.
Helsinki, Autumn, September 13th, 2007 Naresh Chandra Sourabh
CONTENTS
Abstract ... vii
Acknowledgements ... xi
Abbreviations ... xix
List of Maps ... xx
List of Pictures ... xx
List of Tables ... xxi
Introduction ... 1
1 Housework: The responsibility of women ... 7
1.1 The case of India ... 7
1.2 The case of Western countries ... 20
1.3 Theoretical perspectives ... 27
2 Data and methods ... 35
2.1 Time-use study as a method ... 35
2.2 Time-use study in India ... 43
2.3 Data of this study ... 47
2.4 Description of the respondents ... 64
3 Division of labour in housework ... 70
4 Housework as responsibility ... 87
4.1 Obligation of responsibility ... 91
4.1.1 The power of tradition ... 94
4.1.2 The cultural roots of housework ... 107
4.1.3 Socialization ... 113
4.1.4 Elusive modernity: The case of educated and employed women ... 131
4.2 Housework as an expression of affection ... 139
4.3 Purity and quality principle ... 144
4.4 Economic imperatives ... 151
4.5 Consequences of neglected housework ... 155
5 Conclusions ... 165
References ... 177
Appendix A: Activity Coding ... 193
Appendix B: Questionnaire ... 205
Appendix C: A List of Major Questions of the Oral Interview ... 216
Glossary ... 218
Abbreviations
ICSSR — The Indian Council of Social Science Research
Used in parenthesis:
RHN — Rural Household Number UHN — Urban Household Number IRN — Interviewee's Response Number
List of Maps
1. Map of India ... 49 2. Map of Bihar ... 49 2. Map of Patna ... 49
List of Pictures
1. Distributing time-use diaries and questionnaires among teachers. ... 54 2. In a rural co-educational school, a teacher is introducing me to his
students. ... 54 3. The volunteers are interacting with people while distributing time-use
diaries and questionnaires among participants. ... 54 4. The volunteers are checking and sorting time-use diaries and
questionnaires. ... 54 5. Visiting the rural Dinapur (Danapur) and Maner areas in the summer
before starting actual fieldwork. ... 57 6. My living place and working office in the rural area. ... 57 7. In the rural area, the Goraiya-asthan occasional market. ... 57 8. A scene between Dinapur (Danapur) and Maner rural areas in the rainy season, with paddy crops different than in the summer. ... 57 9. Because of the rainy season, the fieldwork jeep got stuck in the mud. ... 61 10. Rushed from my fieldwork to my maternal grandmother's
death ceremony rituals. ... 61
11. In Patna, theDaĎahrå festival is celebrated by burning effigies of
demons. ... 61 12. The celebration ofChaĕh Pėå (Chaĕh ritual) festival. ... 61 13. On the banks of the Ganges river, women celebrateChaĕh Pėå
(Chaĕh ritual). ... 75
14. At Sunrise on the banks of the Ganges river, women celebrateChaĕh Pėå (Chaĕh ritual). ... 75 15. In urban Patna, a grandmother is cleaning rice before it is to be
cooked. ... 75
List of Tables
Table 1. Time spent in domestic work by sex in selected Western countries and in India, average hours and minutes per day. ... 26 Table 2. The distribution of female and male respondents in rural and urban
areas in the survey. ... 65 Table 3. The distribution of female and male respondents
by age in the survey ... 65 Table 4. The distribution of females and males by their marital status in the
Survey ... 65 Table 5. The distribution of females and males according to their work in the
survey. ... 66 Table 6. The distribution of scored hours in the Sunday and Monday time-use
diaries. ... 66
Table 7. The distribution of scored hours in the Sunday and Monday time-use diaries among females and males. ... .66 Table 8. Mean time spent per day (in minutes) on major domestic tasks by sex
and marital status. ... 70 Table 9. Mean time spent per day (in minutes) on major domestic tasks by age
and sex. ... 71 Table 10. Mean time spent per day (in minutes) on specific domestic tasks by
female and male. ... 72-73 Table 11. What are the housework tasks you prefer to do, if you could make a
free choice? ... 87 Table 12. If you are not given freedom to choose, what housework tasks you
are asked to do? ... 88 Table 13. In your opinion, has housework an important role in maintaining
family life? ... 89 Table 14. To what extent do you think you are responsible for performing
housework? ... 91 Table 15. Do you think that both women and men should share housework
equally? ... 94 Table 16. How far do you agree with the statement that experiences and
inspirations of our traditional life with certain norms and values (such as customs) and women's potential for motherhood restrict women to domestic work? ... 96 Table 17. At what age did you start to get training for housework? ... 113 Table 18. When you were asked to do housework in your childhood, how was
it asked? ... 122 Table 19. In your childhood, when you were asked to do some housework
tasks, did you get the impression that performing housework is
important? ... 126 Table 20. How far do you agree with the statement that a woman's role must be
identified with hearth and home? ... 131 Table 21. Does participation in household work result in increasing love and
affection among the members of your family? ... 139
Table 22. To what extent, do you think, are love and affection important to members of your family? ... 140 Table 23. Do you think you will encounter any of the following crises if
housework is stopped in your family? ... 156
Introduction
Housework has been a subject of wide interest among family researchers for decades. Investigations are mainly concerned with the question: How do males and females share the total amount of domestic tasks and time? Issues such as housework and sex-segregated roles, economic productivity, attaining satisfaction, emotional well-being, and the issues of stress, burden, equity and conflict at the family level are also subjects that raise interest among researchers (e.g. Srivastava 1978; Berk 1985; Benin & Agostinelli 1988; Broman 1988; Shelton 1990; Biernat
& Wortman 1991; Erickson 1993; Lye & Biblarz 1993; Mederer 1993; Kluwer et al. 1996; Stohs 1994, 550, 554-5). Generally the studies conducted thus far have been focused on spouses or couples living in nuclear families. Studying housework and related family issues varies greatly in terms of types of theoretical and methodological considerations. Consequently the types of results obtained differ from one study to another.
Throughout the ages, domestic tasks have traditionally been part of the female role (e.g. Dube 1963; Haavio-Mannila 1971, 120). These tasks create unending and monotonous productive service in the lives of women. Women generally spend a considerable amount of their time and labour resources on these tasks. This has been investigated in advanced time-allocation studies by social scientists (e.g.
Becker 1965; Szalai et al. 1972; Oakley 1974; Johnson 1975; Hawrylyshyn 1976;
Walker & Woods 1976; Gronau 1977; Robinson 1977; Murphy 1978; Berk &
Berk 1979; Acharya & Bennett 1981; Andorka & Falussy 1982; Nakanishi 1982).
Their findings suggest that domestic work performed by women is essentially important in fulfilling the social and economic needs of the family and nation.
In most societies, women are assigned and restricted to the home as their primary occupational sphere (Blaxall & Reagan 1976; Hauser & Featherman 1977). Even for those women who work outside of the home, housework is still one of their main chores (e.g. Dalla Costa & James 1975, 21; Perry-Jenkins & Folk 1994;
Kluwer et al. 1996). They often manage a heavy domestic workload (e.g. Myrdal
& Klein 1968, 4; Rogers 1980, 7), running the family and producing goods and services, whereas men's co-operation is minimal (e.g. Greenstein 1996). Women are expected to bear responsibilities related to the domestic field which are socially and culturally assigned to them and to provide services which are asked for (e.g.
Epstein 1970, 148; Stolte-Heiskanen 1971; Eagly 1987; Shelton & John 1993;
Sidanius et al. 1994). Many highly qualified women endeavour to combine their work and family life, rather than give up one for the other (e.g. Mehta 1970;
Fogarty et al. 1971, 230; Srivastava 1978; Ramu 1989). As well, many women, usually due to domestic burdens, still remain part of a relatively disadvantaged stratum, although modern societies provide possibilities for greater interchangeability of the sexes between the public and domestic sectors (Scanzoni
& Fox 1980, 744). This suggests the women's ideology of conceptualizing the female role, wifery and motherhood in family life (e.g. Oakley 1974; Bernard 1975;
Lopata 1976; Lopata & Thorne 1978; Srivastava 1978; Lipman-Blumen 1984, 23- 24; Jain 1985; Sharma 1986; Ramu 1989).
The problems raised above prompt one to investigate housework and to evaluate the gender role in the family. This study focuses on the division of labour in housework in India. Although the amount of work performed by women in the household is all over the world greater compared to that of men (e.g. Greenstein 1996; Kluwer et al. 1996), this is specifically true in a traditional society, like India, where norms and values, attitudes and beliefs heavily support this kind of division of labour. The norm is that women are solely responsible for performing housework without exception (e.g. Srivastava 1978; Jain 1985; Sharma 1986;
Ramu 1989).
The target group of the study consists of rural and urban families. The study examines cultural meanings, both emotional and economic, of the performed sex- segregated housework responsibility. In order to give a more comprehensive picture of the sex-segregated roles, housework of the female and male is examined by data based on age group, and marital status.
This research work is only applicable to the geographical location and to the particular categories of households stated in the study. It may not be applicable to other groups of households and geographical locations. But for reference purposes and further academic advancement the study may be of use. The work is viewed from a specific perspective as discussed in the study.
In order to identify and develop the objectives of this study, three general questions were discerned:
a. How is housework maintained in India?
b. What are the cultural (e.g. norms and values, attitudes and beliefs) forces behind the segregation of housework by gender?
c. Does modernity have any implication for gendered domestic work to direct it towards gender equality as in many Western countries?
This study comprises five chapters. Chapter One examines the issues of gender role in housework responsibility as they are studied and interpreted by family scholars.
Attention is paid to two diversified societies: Indian and Western. The aim of the chapter is to generate deeper cross-cultural knowledge of the housework issues, though the study particularly focuses on India. After that, some relevant theoretical perspectives are examined to enlarge the scope of gender issues in housework.
After the discussion of the conceptual and theoretical issues, the data and methodological aspects are examined and illustrated in Chapter Two which consists of four sub-chapters. In the first two sub-chapters, there is an attempt to thoroughly examine various time-use studies conducted in India and in other
countries. The usefulness and weaknesses of these studies are also assessed. In the two last sub-chapters my attempt is to illustrate the data gathered for this research.
The empirical results of the study are presented broadly in the following two chapters. Chapter Three examines the reality of the division of labour between women and men in housework as it was actualized in Bihar in 1988. The aim of Chapter Four is to make clear the results presented in the previous chapter. The significance of housework in general but also the gendered division of labour tend to persist as they have since time immemorial, because housework is seen as a responsibility. The obligatory nature of responsibility is rooted in the power of tradition, to which a great number of interviewees referred when explaining their commitment to housework. Therefore a separate sub-chapter is devoted to the description of the roots of these traditions. Traditions remain alive if children are socialized according to them, and that happens as the data of this study shows.
This is handled after having examined the role of tradition. The obligatory nature of responsibility is also visible among educated employed women; this is indicated in the sub-chapter on elusive modernity.
The second element that characterizes housework as responsibility is of a different type than the aforementioned obligation as it was manifested in statements that referred to tradition — directed external forces. Here the study moves on to examine those more personal-type utterances that see housework as an expression of affection. Here feelings in general but particularly the feelings of togetherness are prominent. The third element, the purity principle seems to be the most significant in India in viewing housework as a responsibility. The fourth element deals with economic imperatives, which bring an additional external factor to the set of factors which tend to support the sustenance of the significance of housework on the one hand, and on the other the traditional allocation of housework between women and men. Finally these two facts are assessed by looking at how the interviewees view the consequences they see if housework is neglected. All these four elements are inquired into in separate sub-chapters, each
of them adding new knowledge to the one that is given in the sub-chapter where the opening of the question about responsibility occurs.
Particular concepts are central to this study, therefore it is reasonable to define them preliminarily.
Housework (gharelnj kƗryƗ or ghar kƗ kƗm): Work not done for market purposes.
For the most part it is done at home, but some domestic tasks are done outside the home, for example, fetching water, shopping and gardening. In this study, the major domestic tasks are kitchen work, processing of food and other items, care of house and garden, rearing and caring for children, caring for the elderly, unfit persons and guests, care of animals, handicrafts, shopping, and cultural and religious activities.
Culture: In this study culture is conceptualized as traditions, a set of shared attitudes and beliefs, norms and values. These are rooted in the culture. Every society is understood to share a distinctive culture, albeit it varies among population groups.
Sex and gender: Gender is a cultural concept, but it is also affected by ideology which determines what kind of gender roles are proper. The social conditioning of gender is highly context-dependent and varies across nations or cultures as gender ideologies vary across individuals (e.g. Greenstein 1996). Mason (1997, 158) defines the societal gender system as 'the socially constructed expectations for male and female behaviour that are found (in variable form) in every human society.' Gender is not reducible to biology (Oakley 1974, 24) whereas sex is; sex thus refers to the biological distinction between man and woman emerging, for example, in the tables of this study, when differences between males and females are enquired into.
Work and labour: For the most part, family sociologists use the term 'work' and 'labour' variably and as if they were equivalent (e.g. Oakley 1974; Hawrylyshyn
1976, 115-118; 1977, 83; Gronau 1977, Bianchi et al. 2000, Lavee & Katz 2002;
Lewin-Epstein et al. 2006). This position is also taken in this study.
Tradition and modernity: Traditions are seen and conceptualized as old practices in society whereas modernity (non-traditional) is experienced as something new which is born in the process of social transformations. Social transformation is seen as a historical process proceeding from traditionality to modernity when traditions begin to fade, or as Perälä-Littunen (2007, 344) puts it, 'Modernity began when the divine "order" of things no longer was a satisfactory explanation, and thus, order in the world became something that had to be consciously reflected upon. As permanent, stable order could not be attained, ambivalence emerged.'
1 Housework: The responsibility of women
The aim of this chapter is to present knowledge on the persistence of gender roles in performing housework. For this purpose two cultural areas have been chosen, India and the Western world. Since the study is on India, my attention will first focus on the case of India. The aim is to describe how gender role responsibility functions in discharging domestic tasks in India. To describe this, relevant studies are used. The same concerns the case of the Western world: how gender role responsibility is defined and put into effect in Western households is examined through relevant studies. The interest here lies in the fact that a more equal division of labour between women and men was launched in the Western world. As will be seen, the equality issue has been called for in India, too. Finally, the chapter concludes with examining relevant theoretical perspectives aiming to telescope and understand this research objective better theoretically.
1.1 The case of India
How is housework carried out and maintained in contemporary Indian society? Are Indian norms, values, attitudes and beliefs effectively responsible for the gender roles in the household? Is labour divided by gender so that women have to do housework, while men have to work outside the home?
Obviously in Indian society traditional norms, values, attitudes and beliefs are well maintained. They are regulated in the roles and lives of men and women in various stages of their lives. This is confirmed by terms such as gĵhiăƯ (female housekeeper) andgĵhasth (male housekeeper). These stipulate roles by gender line and social anticipation (e.g. Ramu 1989, 99). Subjugated anticipation defines the
issues of authority, power, rights and responsibility of men and women in the family. This relates to the existing notions of masculinity and femininity in society.
Therefore, man and woman have their separate spheres of duty in the common household. The woman as agĵhiăƯ views her rights and duties with devotion and responsibility in discharging all domestic work. The man as a gĵhasth does the masculine type of work which mainly falls outside the home. In this context, Ramu (1989, 100) clearly states: 'Moreover, the cultural expectations that govern what is masculine and feminine also set territorial boundaries where masculinity and femininity are to be best expressed: for women, it is at home and for men it is in the world of work.'
The concepts of masculinity and femininity are not merely biological but also cultural. Usually the man is assigned the masculine duty of fully providing economic support and security to his family. He is dominant and powerful in the pursuit of personal and family needs and achievements. As an ideal husband he is to be the provider, supporter, protector and benefactor of his wife and family. In return he is to get warm, expressive interaction, love, affection, deference and services to satisfy various needs. The concept of masculinity defines roles for the male and female in the family. This regulates their identities and specifies household tasks to be carried out. If a man somehow gets engaged in feminine types of housework like cooking food, washing dishes or sweeping floors, it harms his masculinity. An ideal woman, under the concepts of satƯ (true and devoted wife) andpativratƗ (faithful and devoted to the husband) is expected to tend to the personal needs and the comfort of her husband and family. This compliments the assumptions of masculinity (e.g. Dube 1963; Altekar 1973, 93-121; Mies 1980;
Ramu 1989, 99-100).
Correspondingly, the concepts of masculinity and femininity define that man is the natural master of the social order. Conversely, woman by nature is nurturing, obedient, subservient and dependent. Such roles of men and women are rooted in their manners, behaviours and appearances. The concept of masculinity in the
Indian family system is patriarchal, patrilineal and patrilocal. However, there do exist exceptional matriarchal families (e.g. Mies 1980; Ramu 1989; Dhruvarajan 1990).
In the Indian social set-up, marriage is a must for all girls regardless of wealth or poverty. The worth of their lives is based on becoming a successful, ideal wife and mother under traditional norms, values, attitudes and beliefs. After marriage, giving birth is a top priority for a woman. Otherwise she is looked down upon in society and regarded as a great misfortune to herself and her family. It is not only in bearing a child that the importance of motherhood is found, but also in the nurturing of the child with love, affection, devotion and sacrifice. 'Consequently, women place childcare at the top of their domestic and personal agenda', as Ramu (1989, 103) says.
Norms, values, attitudes and beliefs are responsible for regulating housework by gender. Housework is women's work, whether or not they are educated or employed. Men are disinclined to perform domestic tasks because of deep conditioning in their upbringing and early experience. Women typically say that men are not prepared to do any kind of domestic job, as they have not been trained for such work by their mothers. Generally, women have been doing the domestic tasks. One cannot change that now (Sharma 1986, 63). Sharma also informs us that these traditional attitudes belong to almost all women. 'Housework is part of the female role and that efficiency as a housewife is an important measure of success as a woman' (Sharma 1986, 64).
In everyday life, women are socialized under the images ofsatƯ (true and devoted wife) andpativratƗ(faithful and devoted to the husband). These idealized images stress self-giving, asceticism, reunification, selfless honour, devotion, obedience and loyalty to husband and family. The traditionally ideal and virtuous wife, mother or woman earns respect from within and outside of her family (e.g. Ramu 1989, 100). The socialization of women's femininity is not limited to the family agency but also to outer organized agencies like educational centres. Generally all
education of women is welcome so long as it does not alter their traditional role (Ramu 1989, 31). Thus far, the traditional role of Indian women has not changed.
Formal education of women in India is 'feminized' so that it is considered to be an instrument to promote and maintain a domestic system along the traditional line. In this context Karlekar (1988, 157) states: 'Femininity means non-assertiveness, compliance, obedience, and in education, choosing options that will not conflict with these basic orientations. [...] Clearly then, education has to be manipulated to provide goals and training for girls which are to be substantially different from those for boys.'
Women's association with housework is directly linked with the panorama of satƯ (true and devoted wife) and pativratƗ (faithful and devoted to the husband) doctrine in Indian, particularly Hindu, society. The proponents of these doctrines are Sita, Savitri, Lakshmi, Paravati, Anasuya, Gandhari, and Dropadi. Ideal images and stories of them are familiar to the masses regardless of their age, sex, caste and religion (e.g. Mies 1980; Fruzzetti 1982, 124; Ramu 1989; Dhruvarajan 1990).
The pervasiveness of the domestic role of women is so well established that, in general, they are expected to be domestically competent in the household.
Therefore, in most cases girls are given domestic learning and recreation during their early induction to family life (e.g. Kalakdina 1975, 91; Jeffery 1979, 69). It has also been observed that women learn their gender role expectancies in their families and afterwards transmit them to their children. Thus, women initiate and maintain ritualistic and traditional behaviour for the future lives of the female children. The deep-rooted and intensive idea behind the female's gender role responsibility is well expressed by phrases such as the 'house as the woman's natural place' or 'women are meant for housework'. This is because women have been responsible for doing housework for centuries, and they are necessary and skilled in this area. Also, due to the induction of the pardƗ (this does not allow women to appear before others) system the role of women is either pushed or fixed in the household. Their careers are identified and understood through the hearth and home, regardless of their outside employment. They are also frequently called,
'gharelnj aurat' / 'ghar kƯ aurat'(household woman), 'gĵha-patnƯ' / 'gharer baou' / 'ghar kƯ bƯEƯ' (housewife), 'gĵhiăƯ' / 'gharvƗOƯ', 'gĵha-svƗminƯ' (mistress of the house) (e.g. Altekar 1973, 90-114; Dube 1963, 188; Jeffery 1979, 13; Mies 1980, 67-68; Ramu 1989, 99; Tenhunen 1997, 121).
Guided by these social notions, women perform the unending tasks allocated to the domestic field in their families (e.g. Jeffery 1979, 65-67). The duties of women include taking care of the children (feeding, bathing and bedding, etc.); sweeping and cleaning the house; fetching water for domestic needs either from a well, a pond or a river; cooking and serving food for the men and children; scrubbing the utensils; washing the clothes of the men and children; looking after the storage of provisions (Dube 1963, 195-203; Seymour 1975, 760; Jeffery 1979, 68-74). Along with these tasks, women also go to the market, engage in arts and crafts, knit and embroider, and perform agricultural tasks, such as preparing the ground, sowing, weeding, growing vegetables, harvesting, threshing, winnowing, drying, boiling (mainly paddy) and storage, etc., all of which are related to women's tasks as part of their 'ghar kƗ kƗm'(housework). However, the performance of all these tasks varies (e.g. Dube 1963, 200).
Jeffery's (1979, 68-9) observations suggest that women of Indian families, compared with women in industrialized nations, have hardly any domestic gadgets and convenience foods to ease housework. This is partially true in the urban context and fully true in the rural context where electricity is also scarce. Actually the easing of housework largely depends on family types, economic class position and regional settings of the households. In an urban setting, among middle-class households, there are often certain types of domestic gadgets to ease housework, such as refrigerators, gas or electric stoves, electric toasters, sandwich makers, blenders and small electric ovens. Other items in the household might be equipment for sifting food items, sewing machines, electric or steam irons, new kinds of detergents and scouring pads and so on. But still, household equipment like
vacuum cleaners, freezers and washing machines are not available in the household (e.g. Sharma 1986, 66-8).
As well, the ease of housework is not fully dependent on modern types of domestic equipment like electronic devices, but also on the culture of food and required services. These might vary due to habits, complexity of food and services, and attitudes and beliefs about quality, purity and pollution. Under these circumstances, the situation in Indian families differs from that of the households in more industrialized countries. Therefore, women’s tasks are extended to include buying raw foodstuffs daily or every other day. They have to prepare a variety of spices and herbs for each dish. Wheat flour is stored for a longer period at home, but the capƗWƯ / roĕƯ (unleavened bread) has to be made freshly every day. Loose foodstuffs, such as lentils, rice, wheat, flour, sugar, salt, etc. have to be thoroughly sifted for tiny pebbles, particles of clay, etc. In a dry dusty climate, keeping the house clean is a difficult and never-ending task. In the hottest weather, women must ensure that the small children sleep comfortably by fanning them with their hand. Throughout the year, it is the woman's task to massage the baby many times a day. They perform their domestic chores for long hours, punctuating them with periods to rest or chat. This reflects the lack of alternative possibilities for passing their time with unending and arduous domestic tasks (e.g. Jeffery 1979, 68-69, Mies 1980, 180; Sharma 1986, 81).
Compared with women, the men's contribution to housework in the family is minimal. Normally, men are not expected to do kitchen work as it is against the social norms. Men even expect that a glass of water should be brought to them, that their bed should be made and folded, that their clothes should be kept tidy, and so on. Normally women perform such duties as a woman. Then the question arises whether men take any responsibility in performing tasks in the family. Actually men may take care of children, particularly in educating them; to a certain extent such a task is not gender specified. Men also do household tasks, such as fetching water and fuel, shopping, taking care of cattle and entertaining guests, sweeping and repairing certain parts of the house. These tasks are considered either
masculine or not gender-specific tasks. In summary, women are still, as in former times, expected to be responsible for discharging domestic tasks. They do not ask their men to perform such tasks because the men would lose their dignity (e.g.
Dube 1963; Mies 1980, 45; Ramu 1989).
The importance of the mother's child-care role is examined in Srivastava's (1978) study in relation to the level of mothers' satisfaction with child-care. In this regard, half of working women claim that they are neglecting their children. In contrast, most non-working wives feel satisfied while providing sufficient care for their children. This shows that the class position of wives affects child-care. However, the study concludes that it is undeniably common to take into account the need for child care among all classes (ibid, 104-107). One of the problems of this study is that it does not inform the reader how child care is shared between spouses. The provision of such information would be of great significance when clarifying the gender roles in question; this information was achieved in the author's discussion on family budgeting and shopping. Furthermore, the study also lacks information as to whether and to what extent household chores are shared between spouses.
Sharma's (1986) anthropological study of Shimla, a city in North India, deals with various issues of women's work. These include housework and housewifery, and household management. Urban household settings are sampled, which indeed are of great interest in this case. Her findings show that most Shimla women manifest common, traditional attitudes towards performing housework, regardless of their family class and employment (ibid, 68). They believe that efficient housework is a significant measure of women's success in life (ibid, 63-64). Generally, women consider male co-operation with housework as too unrealistic to seriously contemplate (ibid, 63). The reason for this is that men's disinclination to do housework has deep roots in their upbringing and early experience. Sharma found that the typical attitude is expressed as follows: 'Our Indian men are not ready for this kind of thing. Our Indian men have not been trained by their mothers to do housework, they have always had it done for them. How can you change them now?' (ibid, 63). This is important knowledge about the division of labour in the
household. This attitude reveals the willingness of women to justify the roles of men and women in the household. They express no need for men to do any major housework because this is accepted to be a purely female responsibility. This expresses an inalterability in their traditional roles. Nevertheless, in her study Sharma does not mention what men are actually doing in the household. Certainly men must participate in some kind of housework. This is left out of her study. In addition, she does not define the tasks that make up 'housework'. From other studies it is evident that men also participate in certain household tasks such as child care and going to the market (e.g. Jain 1985; Ramu 1989). These drawbacks in her studies make the information provided on the division of labour disputable.
For a few women, it is noted that that they are so identified with domestic work that they do not even consider having any free time (Sharma 1986, 63). Women on average spend most of their time and a considerable amount of energy on cooking, cleaning and doing laundry. Housework seems so inseparable from the female role that there is no point to say whether women like or dislike it. However, many women are able to specify their like or dislike with regard to some selected housework. The study notes that cooking is more frequently approved of.
Similarly, making garments is considered as the most feminine activity, while washing clothes is a universally disliked job (ibid, 78-79). In the case of household management (e.g. budgeting), the author finds that there are no households in which the responsibility for household management falls entirely upon either the wife or the husband (ibid, 88). Wives' skilfulness in domestic work is required for the creation and maintenance of social values and relations (ibid, 83). How women experience domestic work depends on material conditions, their living standards and family expectations (ibid, 64).
Further, Sharma (1986) notes that most women of all classes believe that it is important for mothers to train their daughters in domestic skills (pp. 73-79). Her study shows that mothers are responsible for transmitting housework gender-role values to their daughters through the process of socialization. After some time the daughters would also be able to play the traditional female role by performing
housework themselves. This also implies that the mother plays a vital role in actualizing female gender roles. This ensures the perpetuation of these roles.
In comparing the role of women and men in the household, Jain's (1985) and Ramu's (1989) studies are particularly interesting because of their greater empirical relevance. Jain's study, based on cross-regional rural families in India, reveals persisting sex-segregated roles in families irrespective of caste, class and regional variations. Men are primarily responsible for an outside job, and spend most of their time there. Women spend time on housework as their primary function. This includes cooking, grinding, cutting, shopping, cleaning, sweeping, washing clothes and utensils, fetching fuel and water, and child-care-related activities. This study was carried out in the rural areas of Rajasthan and West Bengal. Intensive and interesting features of women's roles are also visible there. In rural Rajasthan, though women are heavily engaged in agricultural work, housework is still left to them as their essential job. If a woman from the West Bengal region has an outside job, she most likely prefers to keep her traditional feminine role and work domestically in someone else's household. In these discussions, two things are revealed. Firstly, in the Rajasthan case, we notice a stress on the housework that women do regardless of their outside job. This is similar to other researchers' findings (e.g. Chakrabortty 1978; Karlekar 1982; Sharma 1986). Secondly, in West Bengal, we find an emphasis on the feminine identity and role performance of women. Such perception includes the type of job, i.e. housework. Also, this feminine perception itself shows that women naturally prefer housework. However, from these two separate regional cases, we find in general a perception of women as domestic workers. In this regard, Jain (1985, 215-216) confirms: 'Women perceive themselves as mainly engaged in activities within the household, of which their most regular engagement is in what are called domestic activities.'
The amount of time adult men spend on housework is very little and almost invisible compared to that of adult women. Men do those household tasks which are not necessarily specified as 'feminine', such as fetching water and child care.
Notably, the men of West Bengal co-operate with women in household activities a
little more than do the men of Rajasthan. In my view, this might have to do with the self perception of men due to regional values.
Jain's study shows that gender segregated roles in society are dominant and accounted for by culture and self perception. She states: 'The link between the two, the myth and the methodology, is obvious. It also has its base in reality — in that women and girls are uniquely engaged in household chores or domestic activity, and many similarly supportive activities [...]. Perception also plays a vital role in leading to this presumption' (Jain 1985, 215).
Ramu's study deals with urban-based dual- and single-earner families of Bangalore, a city in India. He examines categorically the crucial issues of housework, including attitudes and behaviours among middle-class families in which tradition and modern social values exist. Regardless of women's work status, they perform domestic tasks that also include child care. It is noted that dual-earner wives spend nearly five times, and single-earner wives eight times, more on domestic activities compared with their husbands. The dual-earner wives perform housework just as much and for as long as the single-earner wives in addition to spending about 40 hours weekly at work. The question arises whether dual-earner husbands share the housework. Findings show that few husbands in dual-earner households help with domestic tasks in order to alleviate the stress of their wives' overload. In the case of single-earner families, family life leans more towards maintaining traditional values. Wives of such households view housework with a sense of purpose and devotion. It is their predestined duty and part of their self expression (Ramu 1989, 63,136-138). Therefore, for single-earner husbands to participate and help their wives in housework does not apply. Generally, minimal or a bit more participation from husbands of both dual- and single-earner households is visible in selected items of child care, going to the market and miscellaneous activities. These activities are not considered totally feminine household activities, which supports Sharma's (1986) findings. It is notable that about 45% of single-earner wives say that they would like to enter the labour force but are not able to do so for various reasons, such as disapproval by husbands and kin, and maternal responsibilities. In
this context, Ramu (1989, 63) states clearly: 'Non-domestic work was to be of secondary importance, and, where necessary, was to remain an adjunct, not an alternative, to their homemaker role. […] They moved according to the dictates of their husbands or other relatives, and to the demands of maternity.'
Now the question is, what are the reasons for the differentiation of the roles of man and woman in the family. In this regard, Ramu (1989, 138) highlights two dominant factors: gender identity and traditional values. These are responsible for determining the separate male and female roles in the household. Also other factors such as physical capacity, including maternal experience, are considered to function with or around the two factors on a broader level.
Although the overall picture of the gender roles in India seems to be very traditional, a number of studies deal with the normative evaluation of the position of women in society and the national reform movement (e.g. Asthana 1974; Agnew 1979; Seetharamu 1981; Chattopadhayay 1983; Desai 1985). Some other studies concentrate on social, cultural, economic and other issues related to women's roles and lives (e.g. Dube 1963; Altekar 1973; Kapur 1970; Kala 1976; Mukherjee 1978;
Shashi 1978; Jeffery 1979; Karlekar 1982; Chaki-Sircar 1984; Subbamma 1985;
Mishra 1985; Jain & Banerjee 1985; Ramu 1989; Tenhunen 1997). In these studies, women's position and dependency, deprivation and exploitation are examined in social and economic contexts. Importantly, these studies also explore emerging issues such as role conflicts, social adjustment and the restructuring of status power, values and ideologies related to women's roles and lives. The studies pay attention to the role conflict of working women as they meet heavy responsibility both in the household and the workplace (e.g. Mehta 1970; Kapur 1970; Chakrabortty 1978; Srivastava 1978; Mies 1980; Ramu 1989).
The role conflict of employed women is traced in self-image. As for self-image, the role conflict of women as wife and mother on the one hand and as employee on the other defines their potential and resourcefulness as regards values, emotions and commitments to roles in and outside the family (e.g. Chakrabortty 1978; Ramu
1989; Tenhunen 1997, 146). The study by Gorwaney (1977, 220) carried out in Rajasthan, India confirms that the self-image of a woman not only evaluates objects of the external world, but also evaluates herself in relation to the society.
Gorwaney's content of self-image possessed by women is as such honesty, obedience, sincerity, kindness, sympathy, cheerfulness, affectionateness, self- confidence, good manners, good student, prestige, independence, popularity, modernity, standing up for rights and so on (ibid, 43). Under self-image the perception of role conflict in women and its consequence of redressing their role decision are observed in Tenhunen's study, as she says: 'Women who have tried to do all the household work alone in addition to working outside the home have not been able to continue their wage work for a long time' (1997, 146).
When explaining the reasons for the unequal gender roles, researchers see the cultural system as the determining factor of Indian women's roles and lives. The status of Hindu women in society is determined by hierarchical values, while the status of tribal women displays egalitarian and liberal social values. The importance of culture in determining women's roles and lives is examined under a traditional cultural model (Shashi 1978; Chaki-Sircar 1984; Mishra 1985). Similarly, the status of Hindu and Muslim women in their cultural traditions is also a focal point (Jacobson & Wadley 1977; Mukherjee 1978; Jeffery 1979). Such studies confirm the dichotomy raised in the women's role and self perception under historical and cultural conditioning. All of these studies explore reasons why married women enter the working sector, the degree of support provided by them for the family, the division of household labour, the adjustment of power and equality, and finally, the impact of mothers’ work on children. Such studies show great similarity with Western studies that were carried out in dual-earner families in the 1970s.
Relevant to my study are those studies that specifically handle the conflicts women face when combining mothering and career. In this respect, Chakrabortty's (1978) study is useful here. She informs that many university educated women from the middle class prefer to marry and have their regular role as wife and mother. These women seek employment so that their education can be used to raise the living
standards of their families. One result of these goals is that many professional married women suffer in developing both their careers and domestic lives.
However, most employed married women give low priority to their careers. They attach primacy to their role in the household. This tendency has to do with their self-image. In contrast, Karlekar's (1982) study on the women sweepers of Delhi reports that poor married women engaged in low wage occupations have difficulty in escaping from their jobs. In addition, these women are hardly concerned with role conflict. The reason for this is that they are concerned more with earning an adequate income to support their families — even in a hostile economic situation
—than with the seemingly insignificant issues of role conflict. It proves that their responsibility to their families and their willingness to maintain them is privatized by them.
Srivastava's (1978) study deals with the broader issues of employed, educated and married women of Chandigarh, a city in India. She too focuses on working women as homemakers and mothers, and the division of domestic responsibilities (ibid, 85- 115). Her study explores the variation of the amount of time and energy spent on housework. This depends on the family’s class and the wife’s age, marital and working situations, and finally, the possession of labour-saving devices and consciousness of the distribution of time (ibid, 69-85). The employment of wives seems to have consequences on the division of labour between spouses in the household.
It is found that in the employed wives' families, there is a less differentiated division of labour between spouses, in contrast to the families of non-working women, where the demarcation of roles is clear (ibid, 97). However, the study confirms that regardless of the working position of wives, budgeting and shopping tasks in families are shared by spouses, though at different levels — more in working wives' families and less in non-working wives' families (ibid, 93-93). This is also confirmed by other studies (e.g. Ramu 1989).
1.2 The case of Western countries
After focusing on the case of India, it would now be fruitful to focus on the Western countries and ask how family issues regarding gender roles have been examined in Western family research. The emphasis of the examination is on empirical results, but the interpretations are also taken under scrutiny.
Since the 1960s, one major subject of family research has been the division of household labour in single- and dual-earner families (e.g. Blood & Wolfe 1960;
Nye & Hoffman 1963; Rossi 1964; Epstein 1971; Scanzoni 1983; Geerken & Gove 1983; Pleck 1985; Berk 1985; Hood 1986; Spitze 1986; Perry-Jenkins & Crouter 1990; Shelton & John 1993 — USA; Dahlström 1967; Fogarty et al. 1968;
Rapoport & Rapoport 1971 — EC). Generally, in order to study the division of labour in the family, scholars examine gender role ideology, ethical values, labour and power distributions, role overburden and conflict, time availability, tasks (specification and amount of time spent), productive values of housework, and family satisfaction and well-being (e.g. Becker 1950; Hawrylyshyn 1976; Andorka 1987; Fogarty et al. 1968; Rapoport & Rapoport 1971; Vanek 1974; Eskola &
Haavio-Mannila 1975; Walker & Woods 1976; Berk & Berk 1979; Brody &
Steelman 1985; Coverman 1985; Thompson & Walker 1989; Gershuny &
Robinson 1988; Hochschild 1983; Blair & Lichter 1991; Lye & Biblarz 1993;
Stohs 1994; Perry-Jenkins & Crouter 1990; Shelton & John 1993).
One of the trends of the research conducted in the 1960s in North America and Europe concerned the impact of wives' employment on family functions and domestic relations. Specifically the negative results of a mother's employment on child care were examined. Also, in the case of Indian studies, Srivastava (1978) and Ramu (1989) had a similar perspective: the studies show dissatisfaction of mothers because of not having enough time for child care. In the early 1970s we find a transformation in this approach by a variety of researchers (Fogarty et al.
1971; Rapoport & Rapoport 1971; Epstein 1971; Holmstrom 1972; Garland 1972). Among these, the study by Rapoport and Rapoport on professional dual-
earner families is worth mentioning. It gave new information on the nature of role conflict and issues of reorganizing domestic relations among working couples. This study as well as some other corresponding studies differ substantially from other studies in the 1970s. These new types of studies note the impact of working wives on domestic relations and seek to find whether the wives' coprovider role had transformed the balance of power, the division of labour and maintenance of child care. These pioneer studies examine cultural, social and psychological elements when analysing gender roles. The role of the wife-mother is considered in terms of 'coprovider who is either facilitated or hindered by ideological and structural conditionings' (e.g. Bailyn 1970; Epstein 1971).
The studies carried out in the late l970s, the l980s and l990s report similar findings:
the wife's coprovider role has not significantly changed the sex-segregated gender role in the household nor the distribution of power (e.g. Bird 1979; Feinstein 1979;
Rapoport & Rapoport 1978, 1980; Pepitone-Rockwell 1980; Aldous 1982; Hood 1983; Huber & Spitze 1983; Lupri 1983; Malmaud 1984; Gerson 1985; Shelton 1990, 116-18; Ferber 1982; Meissner et al. 1975; Stafford et al. 1977; Coverman
& Sheley 1986; Sanik 1981; Pleck 1984; Robinson 1977). This contradicts the findings of scholars showing that men's contributions in domestic work is increasing, and that the domestic division of labour is becoming more egalitarian (e.g. Pleck 1985; Juster 1985). Similarly, Crouter et al. (1987) show that in dual- earner families, husbands participate more in child-care tasks compared to husbands in single-earner families. However, this study does not clearly show how much more time husbands spend on child care (Shelton 1990). Meanwhile, Leslie et al. (1991) inform that wives' employment has no significant influence on the time their husbands spend on child care.
Shelton and John (1993) note that married women spend a greater amount of time on housework than do cohabiting women. In the case of men, marital status is not significantly related to time spent on housework. These findings show that the marital status of women is the determining factor in proving the persistence of gender-based roles in the household. Men's marital status shows insignificant
association in relation to housework and time contribution. Furthermore, this study also informs us that sex role attitudes vary according to marital status. Married men and women observe traditional attitudes more so than do cohabiting partners.
This gender-based role stemming from attitudes in the family possibly explains the difference in labour time. Difference in time spent confirms that the sex role ideology is changed into behaviour after marriage (Kotkin 1983). Furthermore, Shelton and John's investigation shows that marital status is associated significantly with women's housework time, but correlates negatively with that of men.
Compared to married women without children, women of any marital position with children appear to contribute more time to household labour. This implies that the presence of children leads women to perform more household tasks and contribute more time to them. Similarly, married women with children exhibit an increasingly more gender-based role in contributing time and labour in the family. Also, the study by Shelton and John shows that a husband, rather than a male partner (cohabiting), increases the amount of labour and time of women in the family (1993, 416).
Shelton's (1990) study presents a mixed picture of correlations between women's employment status and men's and women's time in household labour. She informs the reader that women's employment is not significantly related to men's absolute time in household labour. There is also little relation between women's paid labour and men's time contributed to specific household tasks. This is supported by similar findings of other scholars ( Beer 1983; Coverman 1985; Pleck 1984; Weingarten 1978). Some researchers concur that there is no correlation between the job time of wives and the time husbands spend performing household tasks (Ferber 1982;
Geerken & Gove 1983; Vanek 1980). Findings show also that employed women spend less time on household tasks than do full-time homemakers (Berk 1985;
Pleck 1985). This accords with studies made in India (e.g. Srivastava 1978; Ramu 1989). Variations exist more in some household tasks than in others. Such variations are seen as tasks for which men are basically responsible, and as those for which men and women can contribute equally. Shelton concludes that domestic labour is still clearly 'women's responsibility'. In any case it is women, rather than
