The Economic
and Social Review,
Vol. 22, No. 4, July,
1991,
pp.
311-332
The Dearth of Data on Irish Farm Wives:
A Critical Review of the Literature
SALLY SHORTALL*
McGill University, Canada
Abstract:
T h i s paper calls a t t e n t i o n to the p a u c i t y o f k n o w l e d g e and statistical d a t a o n the activities
o f I r i s h f a r m wives. T h e r i c h e s t sources of i n f o r m a t i o n are the a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l a n d sociological
studies
o f I r i s h r u r a l life w h i c h began i n the 1 9 3 0 s . A c r i t i c a l review of these is u n d e r t a k e n . T h e l i m i t e d gender
analysis provided b y these studies are identified a n d d i s c u s s e d .
I
INTRODUCTION
here has been a growing concern i n Ireland that w o m e n receive m i n i m a l
A recognition, reward and status for their labour (Duggan, 1987; O'Hara,
1987; Irish Council For The Status o f Women, 1986). A n y attempts at the
investigation o f the involvement o f w o m e n i n rural life has been hampered
by a lack o f detailed statistical data (Phelan, 1989; Sheridan, 1982; Matthews,
1981). The census does not count the spouses of farmers w h o w o r k on the
farm as a separate category and those w h o w o r k unpaid o n the farm are either
not counted or referred t o as "relatives assisting" (O'Hara, 1987). Where data
are available, i t is inadequate and misrepresents the farm w o r k carried o u t by
w o m e n . There is often no clear rationale for the farm tasks selected to quan­
t i f y women's involvement and they frequently represent a narrow, genderbiased view o f what constitutes farm w o r k (Duggan, 1987; O'Hara, 1987;
Sheridan, 1982; Matthews, 1981).
* I w o u l d like to t h a n k three a n o n y m o u s referees, Professor M i k e S m i t h , M c G i l l U n i v e r s i t y M o n t r e a l ,
and the E d i t o r , for useful c o m m e n t s . I a m grateful to B i l l y S h o r t a l l a n d I d e K e a r n e y for providing me
w i t h relevant i n f o r m a t i o n .
This dearth of knowledge regarding farm w o r k and the role o f w o m e n i n
farming life is n o t peculiar to Ireland. Canadian and American sociologists
have also indicated the difficulties of assessing the magnitude and change i n
the labour i n p u t o f farm w o m e n (farm wives i n particular), because o f a scar­
c i t y o f data and deficiencies i n the data that have been collected (Huffman,
1976; Sachs, 1983; Reimer, 1986a, b ; Shaver, 1990). As unpaid labourers i n
Canada, the U K and the US for example, the farm w o r k o f w o m e n has simi­
larly either n o t been accounted for or else subsumed under the heading o f
family help (Reimer, 1986b; H u f f m a n , 1976). The statistical data that are
available are considered to grossly under-represent women's farm labour —
Reimer (1986b) argues that Canadian figures could be doubled or trebled to
more adequately represent women's p a r t i c i p a t i o n . The p r o b l e m stems i n part
f r o m the narrow definitions o f farm w o r k w h i c h are currently operative. These
fail t o take account o f many tasks and w o r k essential t o the farm business and
many o f the tasks that fall i n t o this category are those carried out by w o m e n
(Reimer, 1986b; B u t t e l and Gillespie, 1984; Bouquet, 1 9 8 4 ) . This is even
more complicated for farm wives than for wives i n most non-farm families
because the household and its activities are an intrinsic part o f the farm busi­
ness and also because farm wives have three ways o f benefiting their house­
holds; market w o r k (off-farm e m p l o y m e n t ) , household p r o d u c t i o n (although
household p r o d u c t i o n also constitutes farm w o r k i n many respects) and farm
w o r k ( G o o d w i n and M a r l o w e , 1990; Deseran, Falk and Jenkins, 1984). The
fact that women's farm labour is not acknowledged causes alack o f economic,
legal and social recognition for farm wives as co-operators and co-workers o n
the family farm (Shaver, 1990; Bouquet, 1 9 8 4 ; L o n g , 1984; Shortall, 1990).
1
I t is clear then that i n Ireland, as elsewhere, there is a lack o f detailed,
precise i n f o r m a t i o n o n the w o r k and lives o f w o m e n on farms. Our richest
sources o f i n f o r m a t i o n are the anthropological and sociological studies o f
Irish rural life w h i c h began i n the 1930s w i t h Arensberg and K i m b a l l . I t also
provides an insight i n t o the t r a d i t i o n a l perceptions o f w o m e n w h i c h these
studies adopted. This subsequently hindered an enlightened examination o f
the role o f w o m e n .
The review also allows a certain understanding of h o w the current dearth
of knowledge regarding the position o f farm w o m e n and their activities has
evolved. When the more recent research is reviewed, i t is obvious that there is
a growing awareness that studies o f rural life are incomplete unless they attend
t o the activities o f farm w o m e n . Later works have developed from and beyond
1. T h e s e i n c l u d e s u c h activities as c o l l e c t i o n a n d delivery of spare parts for m a c h i n e r y , transporting
and feeding h i r e d f a r m l a b o u r , m a k i n g a n d t a k i n g telephone calls regarding f a r m business matters,
p a y i n g bills a n d dealing w i t h callers to the f a r m .
earlier studies and have t r i e d to account for issues w h i c h were previously
neglected. However there appears to be a number o f unasked questions w h i c h
persist t h r o u g h o u t all o f these studies. I t is this w h i c h accounts for the current
dearth o f knowledge regarding the position o f farm w o m e n and their activities,
rather than a n y t h i n g inherent i n the activities o f the w o m e n .
I I S T U D I E S O F R U R A L I R E L A N D : W H A T T H E Y T E L L US A B O U T
WOMEN ON FARMS
I n this section, nine o f the most p r o m i n e n t studies o f Irish r u r a l life w i l l
be reviewed. This begins w i t h the w o r k o f Arensberg and K i m b a l l (1940).
They spent t w o years i n the West o f Ireland collecting ethnographic data i n
the 1930s. Their d o c u m e n t a t i o n o f the social and economic conditions of Co.
Clare is considered t o mark the i n i t i a t i o n o f rural Irish sociological research.
The L i m e r i c k Rural Survey 1958-1964 is a detailed, multi-disciplinary study
of L i m e r i c k . I t is Part I V , McNabb's section entitled "Social S t r u c t u r e "
(pp. 193-248) w h i c h is o f interest here. This is an examination o f the social
structure o f rural L i m e r i c k at that t i m e . Messenger's (1969) anthropological
study is based o n research carried o u t on an island i n the Irish Gaeltacht,
w h i c h he identifies b y the pseudonym "Inis Beag". He and his wife lived there
for most of a year i n 1959/60 and returned several times for short visits
between 1961-1966 t o complete their w o r k . He describes the m a i n thrust
of his study as the d o c u m e n t a t i o n o f the contemporary culture o f Inis Beag
at that t i m e . B r o d y lived and w o r k e d i n five communities i n the West o f
Ireland between 1 9 6 6 - 1 9 7 1 . His study ( B r o d y , 1973) is based on the partici­
pant observation he carried o u t during this t i m e , his analysis o f national and
parish records and i n f o r m a t i o n provided b y key informants. A l t h o u g h i t is
m u c h shorter and is n o t i n itself a study o f rural Ireland, Gibbon's (1973)
article is included here. I n this m u c h acclaimed article, G i b b o n reviews the
w o r k o f B r o d y (1973) and puts f o r w a r d his o w n analysis o f the driving forces
of change i n rural Ireland. Similarly, T w o m e y ' s (1976) study is not as
renowned as the other sociological works reviewed here but i t warrants inclu­
sion since, as the t i t l e suggests, i t is specifically a study o f farm wives and i t
investigates their power position through an analysis o f their involvement i n
decision-making processes. Hannan and Katsiaouni (1977) state that their
study is an attempt to provide some i n f o r m a t i o n o n nuclear family interaction
patterns i n Ireland. They examine h o w and w h y farm family interaction pat­
terns have changed i n Ireland since the 1930s and variations i n these patterns.
2
2 . T w o m e y , T i m o t h y J . : " A S t u d y of the I n v o l v e m e n t of F a r m Wives in F a r m , F a r m H o m e a n d
F a m i l y D e c i s i o n s a n d T a s k s " . Masters o f A g r i c u l t u r a l S c i e n c e T h e s i s N U I 1 9 7 6
(unpublished).
They describe interaction patterns as changing f r o m those o f the traditional
family structure w h i c h was t y p i c a l o f rural Ireland during the time o f Arensberg and K i m b a l l ' s research (clear division o f labour, patriarchal a u t h o r i t y ,
maternal socio-economic role) towards the " m o d e r n urban middle-class"
model ( m i n i m a l spousal segregation, j o i n t decision-making, shared emotional
supportive roles). For this study, 408 husband-wife pairs living o n small farms
i n the West o f Ireland were interviewed intensively. Fox's (1978) anthropo­
logical analysis o f T o r y Island details the social structure and customs o f this
island w h i c h he describes as being very different f r o m those o f mainland
Ireland. The final study included i n this review is Scheper-Hughes' (1979)
anthropological and psychological study of a m o u n t a i n village i n Co. K e r r y ,
where she lived for a year. She analyses the social structures and culture o f
" B a l l y b r a n " , the pseudonym she gives to the m o u n t a i n village, and concludes
that the culture and traditions of rural Ireland have died.
I l l T H E P A T R I L I N E A L S Y S T E M OF I N H E R I T A N C E - A C E N T R A L
DYNAMIC
The patrilineal system o f land transference i n Ireland means that w o m e n
rarely inherit farms. This system is frequently described b u t i t or its implica­
tions for the individuals involved are rarely analysed. Arensberg and K i m b a l l
note that the patrilineal system is one o f many w h i c h c o u l d have developed.
They describe the different status and prestige vested i n the roles o f the c o u n t r y
men and w o m e n . They attribute the c o n t r o l l i n g role occupied by the father
w i t h i n the family as being directly related to his status as landowner (p. 4 6 ) .
He abdicates this c o n t r o l l i n g position w i t h his transference o f the farm to his
son (p. 121). Elsewhere, they recount the precedence w h i c h is accorded to
the older men: "The men o f full status w h o head farms and f a r m " (p. 170).
I t is b y virtue of their position as farm heads and owners that the men come
to represent the interests o f the c o m m u n i t y before local a u t h o r i t y figures
and government officials (pp. 170-174). Arensberg and K i m b a l l simultaneously
recount h o w the c o u n t r y districts only vaguely recognise the right o f a w o m a n
to h o l d p r o p e r t y (p. 133) — i n w i d o w h o o d i t is regarded as a trust for a son,
brother or some other male relative. Arensberg and K i m b a l l lucidly describe
h o w the land o f rural Ireland is owned by the men, and this ownership status
carries w i t h i t privileges and legitimate access to other farming activities. But
they do n o t consider the p r o f o u n d implications o f the c o m m u n i t y ' s "vague
r e c o g n i t i o n " o f a woman's right to h o l d property. Since the father's con­
t r o l l i n g role w i t h i n the family is associated w i t h his status as landowner, his
representation o f c o m m u n i t y interests before a u t h o r i t y figures is linked t o
his p o s i t i o n as farm owner and precedence is accorded to the o l d men w h o
head farms, the role and prestige o f w o m e n is greatly deflated b y their nonownership status.
McNabb (1964) also describes the a u t h o r i t y , social prestige and status w h i c h
are embedded i n the role o f the father/farmer figure and he t o o locates the
source o f all this i n his position as owner o f the farm (pp. 2 2 8 / 2 2 9 ) . Messenger
(1969) describes h o w sons o b t a i n land f r o m their fathers or w i d o w e d mothers.
When he questioned the islanders about prestige symbols and the positions
of individuals i n the status hierarchy, he f o u n d the o n l y consensus w h i c h
emerged was the placing o f land and capital at the apex o f the rank order o f
symbols and the assigning o f men w h o possess these i n greatest q u a n t i t y t o
the top end o f the hierarchy, and landless men at the b o t t o m (p. 85). He does
n o t comment o n the fact, however, that as non-owners w o m e n are auto­
matically excluded f r o m the c o m m u n a l l y agreed status hierarchy. Similarly,
McNabb detailed h o w a man achieves a full economic and social status o n l y
w h e n he becomes the owner o f a farm (p. 243). U n f o r t u n a t e l y the corollary
of this for w o m e n , w h o are virtually assured they w i l l never become the
owners o f farms, is left unexplored.
B o t h B r o d y ( 1 9 7 3 ) , w h o tries to be more tuned i n t o the sentiments o f
w o m e n than Arensberg and K i m b a l l , and Scheper-Hughes (1979) argue that
rural Ireland is i n a state o f social disintegration and decline. I n o u t l i n i n g the
" d e v a l u a t i o n " o f t r a d i t i o n a l mores however, they overlook those that remain
intact and patterns o f ownership and inheritance are some o f the most fun­
damental o f these. B r o d y questions what he considers to be Arensberg and
K i m b a l l ' s idyllic presentation o f life i n rural Ireland and argues instead that
i t is fraught w i t h tensions and divisions. He is sensitive to the situation o f
rural w o m e n and describes their migration as an expression o f their disillu­
sionment w i t h rural life. He maintains that the woman's role has " i r o n i c a l l y "
(p. 127) given girls an emotional freedom to emigrate from t h e r u r a l situation.
I t is ironic because they o b t a i n this freedom t h r o u g h their disinherited position,
while the son or owner/inheritor w h i c h B r o d y uses as a s y n o n y m (p. 127) is
tied b y the d u t y and responsibility that accompany inheritance. But B r o d y
does n o t consider h o w or w h y this situation, w h i c h is mobilised against the
girls, arose i n the first place — or h o w i t obviously remains intact i f i t is
through their exclusion that they gain the " f r e e d o m " t o emigrate. Similarly,
Scheper-Hughes argues that i t is easier for girls t o emigrate f r o m Ballybran
because they are not c o m m i t t e d , as the boys are, to carrying o n the family
farm and name (p. 38). But i t w o u l d seem impossible for girls t o be com­
m i t t e d t o this system w h i c h does not consider them as potential heirs/owners/
farmers. She describes h o w the sexual composition o f a family is a major
determining factor o f size i n Ballybran; six or more children usually means a
predominance o f girls since, for the selection o f an heir, parents hope t o have
a m i n i m u m of t w o sons (p. 138). She recounts the jubilations w h i c h f o l l o w
w h e n a son is " f i n a l l y " b o r n o n a farm where they have been waiting for an
heir (p. 142). I t is obvious f r o m this that i n Ballybran sons are still considered
the legitimate heirs and owners of the land and the m a i n structure j u s t i f y i n g
this simultaneously denies girls legitimate claims of ownership o n the land.
Scheper-Hughes leaves us w i t h the understanding that girls are n o t as inte­
grated i n t o rural life as boys. B u t had she investigated w h y this is the case,
we w o u l d have had a clearer understanding o f the p o s i t i o n o f w o m e n i n
rural Ireland.
G i b b o n (1973) claimed that previous sociological studies o f Ireland had
given an unrepresentative picture of a homogeneous, harmonious society.
While G i b b o n illustrates class differentials and identifies the dominance o f
the large farmer, he does n o t note the gender differentials or identify the male
dominance inherent i n the situation he describes. Whether referring to large
or small farms, he speaks o f " h i s " farm, household and family labour force
w i t h o u t further comment (p. 4 8 5 ) . He describes the development o f capitalism
i n agriculture as threatening small and inefficient farmers, b u t i t seems clear
that i t has n o t threatened the pervasive view o f farming as a male industry.
T w o m e y (1976) notes the patrilineal line w i t h o u t comment — he finds a
higher percentage of female ownership than the national average i n his study
and says this probably reflects a higher percentage o f w i d o w s i n that county
(p. 5 ) . He notes t o o that the increased financial independence o f w o m e n w i t h
off-farm e m p l o y m e n t is positively associated w i t h their a u t h o r i t y position
and involvement i n farm decisions (p. 76). So T w o m e y i m p l i c i t l y recognises
that w o m e n are o n l y likely to o w n land i n unusual circumstances, and he also
recognises the importance o f financial independence for the a u t h o r i t y position
of farm wives and their involvement i n farm decisions. However he does not
identify the l i n k between the t w o factors. The patrilineal line o f inheritance
contributes i n many respects to the greater financial dependence o f the wives.
They do not have any ownership claims on the land, and although as he illus­
trates they do w o r k o n the farm, they must secure off-farm e m p l o y m e n t to
obtain the financial independence w h i c h then legitimates greater involvement
i n farm decisions.
Hannan and Katsiaouni's study (1977) includes an i m p o r t a n t dimension
w h i c h focuses on the lives o f farm w o m e n . This is their attempt to identify
and understand the change from the t r a d i t i o n a l role o f farm w o m e n as depicted
b y Arensberg and K i m b a l l to a more " u r b a n " type role where women's activi­
ties become more house b o u n d . However, the " m o d e r n urban middle-class"
model used b y Hannan and Katsiaouni as one o f the anchors o f their research
overlooks many o f the different dynamics at play i n the rural situation, par­
ticularly relating to w o m e n , w h i c h w i l l affect interaction patterns. One o f
the most fundamental o f these is the patrilineal system. They p o i n t o u t that,
unlike non-farm w o r k , the w o r k c o n t e x t o f the farmer is very m u c h w i t h i n
the family (p. 86). This is a very different situation than that o f most o f his
urban counterparts, as is the fact that he usually owns his means o f produc­
t i o n and is his o w n "boss" (Hannan and Katsiaouni found i n 79 per cent o f
the cases they interviewed that husbands had inherited the farm). His w i f e ,
on the other hand, usually occupies the p o s i t i o n o f an unpaid w o r k e r . How­
ever, neither the effects o f this for inter-personal relationships and gender
power relations, nor the l i n k between these effects and the patrilineal line
of inheritance are raised.
Fox (1978) describes h o w different patterns o f inheritance operate o n
T o r y Island. He describes h o w males and females inherit land equally (p. 9 9 ) .
The m a i n consideration is " l a n d o f the marriage" (p. 106). That is, each
marriage requires land and this must be provided for. I f a w o m a n or man were
to marry and their spouse had land, they w o u l d n o t press their claims t o
their home land b u t w o u l d leave i t for other siblings. He describes this system
as a sensible adaptation to a difficult environment i n that i t allows the rational
d i s t r i b u t i o n o f land w h i c h , given the island's p o p u l a t i o n and terrain, w o u l d
n o t be facilitated b y the patrilineal system o f inheritance (p. 126). However,
his description o f the " h o l d i n g " and ownership o f land contains a number o f
contradictions w i t h this egalitarian image o f inheritance patterns. He notes
that men predominate i n records o f ownership since " w o m e n are far more
l i k e l y t h a n men t o relinquish claims" (p. 9 9 ) . I t is unclear w h y this is so i f
men and w o m e n are t r u l y equal heirs. He describes h o w land w i l l be spoken
of as belonging t o a man b u t , on analysis, w i l l t u r n out to belong to h i m and
his t w o sisters (p. 9 9 ) . F o x also outlines the case o f a girl w h o inherited land
f r o m her father o n her marriage. When her father bought more land after her
marriage, he divided i t between his sons and son-in-law. These recountings
illustrate that, while the n o r m a l patrilineal system o f inheritance does n o t
h o l d on T o r y , i t has not significantly weakened the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f h o l d i n g /
o w n i n g land as the legitimate d o m a i n o f the male. The w o m a n may be a
channel t h r o u g h w h i c h land is obtained, b u t i t is o n l y i n the anomalous situ­
a t i o n o f w i d o w h o o d that she is n o t e d as a holder/owner (p. 113).
The social, economic and power p o s i t i o n o f w o m e n i n farming life is greatly
reduced b y their l i m i t e d claims t o the land. This position is perpetuated b y
the patrilineal line o f inheritance. This order o f the situation is so deeply
entrenched that i t is viewed as natural and unchangeable and n o t o n l y is an
alternative rarely considered b y the individuals involved, b u t the p r o f o u n d
implications o f this system are often glossed over b y social analysts. Indeed,
it leads to statements regarding inheritance that are contrary t o presented
evidence. McNabb (1964) says that " a l l members o f the farm have equal r i g h t s "
(p. 243) regarding inheritance, and Hannan and Katsiaouni state that "the
process o f land acquisition t h r o u g h inheritance and purchase is related to age
and family cycle stage" (p. 69). These incongruous statements reflect the
general neglect o f these studies to focus a t t e n t i o n o n and examine the relation­
ship between land acquisition and gender or the gender power relations i m p l i c i t
i n the males' almost guaranteed p o s i t i o n as " o w n e r " , while females are con­
tinuously disinherited.
I V T H E A N A L Y S I S OF T H E F A T H E R / S O N R E L A T I O N S H I P
The failure t o f u l l y investigate the links between the farm wives' disinherited
position and their p o s i t i o n i n the f a m i l y farm and c o m m u n i t y is all the more
surprising since an awareness o f such links is displayed b y the analyses o f the
father's transfer o f the land t o the son. Arensberg and K i m b a l l ponder the
power relationships between father and son i n some detail — they discuss the
"lifelong s u b o r d i n a t i o n " (p. 56) o f sons w h o at that t i m e often d i d n o t inherit
the farm u n t i l they were m i d d l e aged. They discuss the lack o f say that sons
have at farms and markets and they describe the father/son division o f labour
as more t h a n an arrangement o f farm management — i t was part o f the system
of controls, duties and sentiments w h i c h made up family life and reflected
their relationship w i t h their parents. This leads t h e m to conclude that i t is
impossible to treat the t w o spheres o f behaviour, that is family life and farm
roles, separately (p. 5 6 ) . McNabb (1964) outlines h o w the father greatly
values his a u t h o r i t y and social prestige and holds o n t o these tenaciously. He
is inspired to h o l d o n to them i n this tenacious fashion b y the fact that he
himself has been a dependant for so long. He describes h o w the son is intensely
aware o f his subordinate p o s i t i o n (p. 231) and, w h e n he inherits, he gets
those things w h i c h he had been deprived o f for so long — ownership and the
right to dispose o f his o w n private property (p. 2 2 9 ) . This results i n his deter­
m i n a t i o n to prevent his family " f r o m invading his o w n personal d o m a i n "
(p. 2 2 9 ) . Messenger (1969) details h o w the father's transference o f land to
his son is n o t w i t h o u t difficulties, "most fathers i n Inis Beag are loath t o
surrender their p r o p e r t y and w i t h i t c o n t r o l o f the f a m i l y " (p. 68). Brody
(1973) describes h o w fathers are having to recognise the increased indepen­
dence o f their sons consequent o n wider social changes. This recognition takes
the f o r m o f earlier inheritance and involvement in farm management. He notes
that the dominance w h i c h the father had over his son has been a source o f
amazement for most commentators on Irish life (p. 109). Such a system
required an e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y deep-felt respect for the father's a u t h o r i t y and i t
was perpetuated by the c o n t i n u a l assumption o f the father's role b y the son.
Arensberg and K i m b a l l ' s description o f the importance o f owning land is
insightful and valuable. T h e y clearly relate the subordinate position occupied
b y the son and his l i m i t e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n at fairs w i t h his non-ownership status
prior t o inheritance. I t is a great p i t y that the p o s i t i o n o f the farm wife or
what her absence f r o m the fair represents is n o t scrutinised i n the same way.
McNabb indicates h o w i t is the lengthy powerless p o s i t i o n o f the son w h i c h
results i n the entrenchment o f the father's power-position. However, the power/
powerless positions o f the husband/wife, father/mother are n o t explored i n
the same w a y b y M c N a b b , Messenger or B r o d y . I n many respects, the p o s i t i o n
of the w o m e n presents greater difficulties than that o f sons i n that, w h i l e a
son is faced w i t h a l o n g subservient w a i t , he is a p o t e n t i a l father/owner arbiter
and judge. The lucid descriptions o f the dynamics o f the father/son relation­
ship illustrate the crucial importance o f land ownership for status and prestige.
These insights could have proved even more enlightening had they also been
examined i n relation to gender.
V T H E A N A L Y S I S OF G E N D E R ASCRIBED WORK R 6 L E S A N D
ACTIVITIES
A l l o f the studies describe the gender prescribed spheres o f activity and
frequently present these as having rigidly defined boundaries. Some o f the
studies detail the dissatisfaction o f some w o m e n w i t h these rigidly prescribed
roles (Messenger, B r o d y , Hannan and Katsiaouni, Scheper-Hughes). However,
some fundamental questions about these prescribed roles are never raised:
for example, h o w they i n i t i a l l y developed and are maintained particularly i f
some role players are dissatisfied w i t h their prescribed spheres o f activity,
or the different social status and economic consequences o f the differing roles.
Arensberg and K i m b a l l present the gender-related division o f labour as a
functional development w i t h i n the society. The duties o f each are comple­
mentary (p. 195). Despite this image o f a natural evolution o f complementary
roles, they describe the different status and prestige vested i n each. The farm
wife or m o t h e r "serves her m e n " (p. 3 5 ) , and does n o t seat herself to eat
u n t i l they have finished their meal. The husband/father occupies the "con­
t r o l l i n g r o l e " w i t h i n the family (p. 4 6 ) . Arensberg and K i m b a l l accept w i t h ­
o u t question the greater status w h i c h is awarded to the w o r k o f men. They
say i t is harder, more varied and wider i n scope and attitudes reflect the greater
valuation given to male activities; "The authors have heard m e n admonish a
w o m a n for i n t e r r u p t i o n w i t h such phrases as: ' w o m a n , be silent while we
[ m e n ] are talking about p l o u g h i n g ' " (pp. 48-49). Here i t is clear that the
differing status also operates b e y o n d the spheres o f w o r k — i n this instance
i t is obvious i n interpersonal relations and i t also seems t o be closely identi­
fied w i t h gender since they tell her as a " w o m a n " t o be quiet. While Arens­
berg and K i m b a l l say that the w o r k o f the m e n is harder and more valued,
their description o f the woman's activities leaves us unclear about w h y this is
the case (pp. 35-39). The w o m e n begin w o r k earlier each day than the m e n ,
their w o r k is presented as being more time-consuming and they end later.
They also state that the w o r k o f the w o m e n is as i m p o r t a n t for the farm
economy as that o f the men. But at no p o i n t do they explore the anomaly
between this observation and the l o w status awarded t o the women's w o r k ,
or w h y their c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the farm is n o t more recognised. N o r do they
investigate w h y such rigid sanctions, taboos and m y t h s are necessary to main­
tain the gender related division o f w o r k (a man concerning himself w i t h
" w o m e n ' s " w o r k "is the subject o f derisive laughter" [ p . 4 8 ] ) i f i t is the
natural complementary division they suggest.
Arensberg and K i m b a l l provide useful insights i n t o the different status
accorded to the gender w o r k roles and h o w this pervades other aspects o f
rural life. B u t their focus o n the complementary nature o f these roles means
that while they give us valuable insights into w h a t the w o m e n do, they fail
t o address h o w or w h y the roles developed. They also do n o t question w h y
the male role is superior i n terms o f status, prestige and financial reward, or
indeed w h y i t is the men w h o came to occupy this role.
I t is clear t h r o u g h o u t McNabb's (1964) study that the designated w o r k role
of w o m e n is demanding and t i m e consuming. He recognises the exploitative
nature o f the women's role, saying daughters are never compensated for their
w o r k o n the farm (p. 188). He describes the "unrelieved m o n o t o n y " o f the
woman's w o r k and says her tasks are "onerous and u n v a r y i n g " (p. 2 3 4 ) .
A d d i t i o n a l t o this are the increased farm duties w h i c h she and the children
must shoulder when her husband has gone to t o w n , a hurling match or a race
meet. The w o m a n , o n the other hand, "rarely sees the outside o f her h o m e "
(p. 2 3 4 ) . Despite the onerous, monotonous tasks she undertakes and her
constant availability as a relief w o r k e r , she is not acknowledged as making
an i m p o r t a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to the family farm. As a bride, she must compen­
sate for her entry to the farm w i t h a d o w r y and she and her w o r k always
occupy a lower social prestige position (pp. 226-227). McNabb provides a
strong sense o f the unequal p o s i t i o n occupied by farm w o m e n . While this is
useful, i t stops short o f an investigation o f h o w or w h y this p o s i t i o n is allo­
cated t o w o m e n , h o w she feels about i t or w h a t encourages her t o continue
subscribing to such an exploitative role. His observations w o u l d be even more
f r u i t f u l had they p r o m p t e d these questions.
Messenger also tries to present us w i t h some understanding o f the woman's
role when he analyses the status and power a t t r i b u t e d t o her role. He main­
tains that w i t h i n marriage she is the " s t r o n g " person i n the household, sharing
at least equally i n decision-making and, i n many cases, the husband bows t o
her decisions. This is n o t only the case for m i n o r matters b u t i n affairs o f
" u t m o s t i m p o r t a n c e " and "activities n o r m a l l y w i t h i n the male sphere, such
as f a r m i n g " (p. 78). However, there are many questions surrounding the
position occupied b y w o m e n w h i c h he leaves unaddressed. I t is unclear w h y
i t is o n l y " w i t h i n marriage" that w o m e n occupy this egalitarian position or
w h y i t is n o t carried over to public spheres and recognised there. He does not
question w h y certain activities " n o r m a l l y w i t h i n the male sphere" are iden­
tified as such i f he usually bows to his wife's decisions i n matters relating t o
these activities. N o r does he investigate whether the involvement o f w o m e n
i n such decisions is affected b y the perception o f these activities as being
outside o f her legitimate sphere. Messenger's image o f wives as equal partici­
pants i n family power structures is contrary t o the c o n t r o l and greater status
his study identifies w i t h the male role and i t is difficult to align w i t h the
account the w o m e n gave to his wife about h o w restrictive they f i n d their role.
M a n y confided that they were unhappy about "being f o r c e d " to remain
home m i n d i n g children and performing tedious household chores (p. 77).
They frequently expressed jealousy of and resentment against what they
considered t o be the less time-consuming and stressful w o r k l o a d o f men, and
the greater freedom enjoyed b y their husbands (p. 77). The w o m e n provide
the material w h i c h allows Messenger to describe h o w unhappy they are w i t h
the f o r m o f division o f labour o n the island and the w o r k they are assigned
b y this division. This gives an i m p o r t a n t perspective o n h o w the w o m e n feel
about their prescribed role. But Messenger does not move beyond this to
question w h y i t has t o be this way or what social forces h o l d i t i n place regard­
less o f the voiced dissatisfactions o f the w o m e n .
B r o d y documents the increased reference to urban standards by the r u r a l
c o m m u n i t y as a reflection o f the decline and disintegration o f t r a d i t i o n a l
mores and values. However, he overlooks h o w this reference to urban stan­
dards occurs from w i t h i n t r a d i t i o n a l l y defined spheres rather than destroying
t r a d i t i o n a l mores and values. The father and son negotiate the son's earlier
inheritance as a sign o f his increased independence, the wife places greater
emphasis o n cleanliness and tidiness i n the home. He describes the exclusion
of w o m e n f r o m the social centres o f the c o m m u n i t y and details "the insigni­
ficance a t t r i b u t e d to w o m a n h o o d " i n public life (p. 110). While the woman's
influence may have been significant i n home and c o m m u n i t y life, " i t was
i n f o r m a l and domestic: w o m e n had at least to appear to be w i t h o u t auth­
o r i t y . . . " (pp. 110-111). Why must the w o m e n appear authority-less? What
maintained her role i n this way? What w o u l d a different female role have
threatened? Brody supplies sharp valuable observations b u t there are many
subsequent questions left unasked.
T w o m e y begins his study w i t h the auspicious statement that unqiue to
farming is the strong interdependence between family and business, between
the consumption and p r o d u c t i o n u n i t . He none the less conducts his study
using a t r a d i t i o n a l narrow d e f i n i t i o n o f farm w o r k w h i c h is based o n visible,
m onetar ily rewarded farm yard w o r k . I f w o m e n increase their involvement
i n these activities and actively seek i n f o r m a t i o n about these activities, they
w i l l have strengthened " t h e i r bargaining p o s i t i o n " and become more involved
i n farm decisions (p. 6 4 ) . A l t h o u g h i t is n o t overtly stated, there is a tacit
i m p l i c a t i o n here that w o m e n are i n a position where they must strengthen
their bargaining p o s i t i o n . He maintains that w o m e n become involved accord­
ing t o their "interests and activities" (p. 35). However, he does note that the
larger the f a m i l y , the less t i m e she has available t o become involved i n farm
tasks and decisions. Her involvement varies w h e n she is freed o f these restric­
tions ( p . 8 5 ) . He suggests t o o that there are activities w h i c h " b y their very
nature and b y t r a d i t i o n " (p. 81) w o m e n are more involved i n , for example
m i l k i n g and calf-feeding activities.
While T w o m e y sets o u t b y stating the importance o f the farm wives' acti­
vities for the farm business, he continues to overlook the unrecognised farm
w o r k o f w o m e n b y o n l y undertaking an assessment o f their involvement i n
visible, t r a d i t i o n a l l y defined farm tasks. He investigates their involvement i n
a l i m i t e d number o f farm activities and although he notes how women's pre­
scribed role prevents t h e m having the time or energy t o invest i n these tasks,
he does not clarify the l i n k between these t w o points — the activities o f
w o m e n do n o t allow them more t i m e t o become involved i n the stereotypical
" f a r m " activities. He does n o t establish w h y i t is necessary for her t o engage
further i n these " f a r m " activities i n order to guarantee her role i n farm decision­
making given the links he ostensibly recognises between the farm and the
household. T w o m e y gives a clear i n d i c a t i o n o f the uncertain status o f farm
wives w h e n he discusses the case o f farm wive*s w i t h off-farm employment.
He claims they are more l i k e l y t o be involved i n farm decisions because they
receive the same status and privileges as men i n their place o f w o r k and so
may " d e m a n d " the same rights w i t h regard to running the farm, and the visible
monetary c o n t r i b u t i o n they n o w make also means they can " d e m a n d " a
bigger say (p. 7 6 ) . However, he does n o t investigate the corollary o f this for
those farm wives w h o do n o t have off-farm employment, or w h a t i t implies
about the status and value a t t r i b u t e d to their w o r k .
Hannan and Katsiaouni (1977) perceive the farm as the p r o d u c t i o n u n i t ,
the house as the consumption u n i t , and b o t h as constituting completely
separate spheres. They then go o n to say that task roles i n the farm f a m i l y
can be divided into those o f the husband (the farm), the wife (household
and housekeeping) and those w h i c h are j o i n t or demand at least some hus­
band participation (the children) (p. 122). They maintain that recent changes
i n rural Ireland augment this separation, farm wives becoming increasingly
like their urban counterparts and increasingly confined to household acti­
vities, w h i l e the commercialisation o f agriculture necessarily exaggerates the
exclusive economic provider role o f the male (p. 24/p. 15). Because Hannan
and Katsiaouni accept the different gender roles w i t h o u t asking h o w they were
established or w h y they are maintained, they present likely future develop­
ments i n a way w h i c h continues t o obscure the unrecognised farm w o r k o f
w o m e n . By stating the farm wife is becoming increasingly like her urban
counterpart, the i m p o r t a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n o f wives to the farm, b o t h through
their household/farm w o r k and their more visible farm y a r d w o r k , is further
obscured. T w o - t h i r d s o f "farmers" interviewed said that, w i t h o u t the contri­
b u t i o n o f wives and younger children, some line o f p r o d u c t i o n w o u l d have
to be dropped. They also note that a high level o f economic activity requires
a high level o f efficiency i n farm, household and farm yard operations and i n
farm management generally (p. 160). B u t , b y stressing similarities w i t h her
urban counterpart, the c o n t i n u i n g importance o f farm wives and their house­
h o l d activities for general farm p r o d u c t i o n are obfuscated. Similarly, their
n o t i o n o f the inevitable more exclusive economic provider role o f the male
masks the productive importance o f the wife for the farm business. This per­
ception that roles w i l l " i n e v i t a b l y " develop i n this way is not shared by other
analysts. For example, Gasson (1981) and Kessler (1976) m a i n t a i n that the
mechanisation o f farming should allow females even more o p p o r t u n i t y to
become involved i n the farm y a r d since i t reduces the need for physical
strength. Hannan and Katsiaouni describe the farm wife as increasingly w i t h ­
drawing to the farm house as her previous farm yard activities are dropped
because they are no longer economically viable, or have expanded to become
commercial enterprises (p. 26). This observation w o u l d have been more use­
f u l had i t p r o m p t e d Hannan and Katsiaouni to ask w h y farm wives drop farm
yard activities i f they become commercial enterprises or w h y i t is considered
" n a t u r a l " for her to retreat to the house i n the face o f these. I t is clearly not
a question o f ability since, i n the aberrant 2 per cent o f cases where husbands
were incapacitated, wives d i d nearly all the farm w o r k (p. 70). Rather than
questioning the fundamental division o f labour, they diverge i n t o an examin­
ation o f variations o f established patterns, i.e., whether a greater or lesser
number o f children means more or less husband p a r t i c i p a t i o n in child care.
However, child care basically remains the primary concern o f the wife. N o r
do they assess the implications o f the different status and recognition awarded
each role, or question whether this too is " i n e v i t a b l e " ; they maintain that
"deeply institutionalized normative factors" set limits to the extent o f the
husband's helpfulness, especially i n housekeeping (p. 131) and they recount
female breaching o f basically male dominated spheres as not being nearly as
seriously ridiculed as the reverse "a reflection, no d o u b t , o f the relative status
or prestige ascribed to b o t h male and female roles" (p. 71). Hannan and Katsiaouni recognise the different status a t t r i b u t e d t o the gender prescribed roles.
But they do n o t explore whether the persistence o f gender specific roles w i l l
also mean the persistence o f differing status and prestige positions.
Scheper-Hughes describes h o w the n o r m a l l y small profits from the tourist
season are looked u p o n as " w i n d f a l l s " b y most guest-house w o m e n , analogous
to their o l d " b u t t e r and egg" money (p. 50). She describes this " b u t t e r and
egg" money as having been perceived as the o n l y legitimate source o f income
for the older generation. While Scheper-Hughes gives a clear indication o f the
women's l i m i t e d access to the farm family finances, she does not question
w h y this is the case. B o t h the b u t t e r and egg and the guest-house money repre­
sent the non-recognition o f the farm wives' c o n t r i b u t i o n t o the farm, i n that
they are sources o f income to w h i c h she is legitimately entitled, since she has
been solely responsible for them and they are perceived as being "extra curr i c u l a r " farming activities. The i m p l i c a t i o n i n this, however, is that she is n o t
automatically perceived as being entitled to the general farm income, or as
having made an i m p o r t a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to i t . This, however, is n o t explored
by Scheper-Hughes.
These studies give us a strong sense o f the w o r k and activities o f w o m e n
i n rural Ireland. They also give us an impression o f the status and privilege
attached to their role and o n the m e r i t o f these points alone the studies con­
t r i b u t e greatly to our understanding of the lives o f rural w o m e n . B u t there
are a number o f crucial questions these studies fail to ask. H o w and w h y d i d
these gender role divisions occur, what are the implications for role players,
why do w o m e n continue subscribing t o a system w h i c h they frequently appear
unhappy w i t h ? I t is true that a number o f the studies p o i n t to female m i g r a t i o n
as an expression o f discontent, b u t w h a t about those w h o stayed? What is i t
that holds the system so solidly together, that the o n l y o p t i o n is migration?
Messenger (1969) never questions w h y the grievances o f the w o m e n remain
secrets to w h i c h his wife is p r i v y , or w h y these grievances are n o t turned i n t o
action that instigates changes. McNabb (1964) claims that, while w o m e n
w o u l d like their husbands to play a more intimate role i n family relations,
they are afraid any change i n his role w i l l weaken their o w n (pp. 2 2 9 / 2 3 0 ) .
B r o d y , Messenger and Scheper-Hughes all argue that mothers encourage
daughters to emigrate because they do not want them to occupy the same
restrictive roles as they d i d . This shows their recognition o f the deep dissatis­
faction of the w o m e n , and the difficulties i n changing the current situation.
However, this observation d i d not lead i n any case to an exploration of the
strength o f the social structures and legitimacy supporting role definitions
w h i c h made exodus the o n l y considered alternative. The fundamental legiti­
macy, restrictiveness and c o n t i n u a l perpetration o f prescribed spheres o f
activity are n o t rigorously scrutinised i n any o f the studies.
V I PARTICIPATION I N FARMING A N D R U R A L SOCIAL
ORGANISATIONS
A l l o f the studies provide an insight i n t o the farming structures, organisa­
tions and other social groups w h i c h existed i n rural Ireland at the time o f their
research. While these descriptions are valuable, there is a lack of rigorous
analysis regarding w h o was involved i n these groups, factors affecting partici­
p a t i o n or status awarded to participants.
Arensberg and K i m b a l l (1940) give a detailed description o f fairs w h i c h
were the direct ancestor o f today's mart, the first o f w h i c h was introduced i n
1955. They describe the local fair as a matter o f pride, being considered an
index o f the industry and wealth o f the region. They were the "chief occasions
of commercial and monetary a c t i v i t y " (p. 293) and they provided the "great
testing ground for male prowess, skill and intelligence" (p. 289). One o f the
most salient features o f the fair was the absence o f w o m e n — " T h e y are mas­
culine affairs" (p. 283). This is recounted as a legitimate, descriptive feature
of the fair w i t h o u t considering exactly what this exclusion signifies. I t means
w o m e n do n o t feature i n the chief economic/monetary event, i n the source
of local pride, nor partake i n the industry and wealth o f the region. She is
absent f r o m the testing ground for "prowess, skill and intelligence". There is
an i m p l i c i t suggestion about the c o n t r i b u t i o n she has made to these areas i f
her absence is " l e g i t i m a t e " and her invisible position is further consolidated
b y her lack o f involvement i n the prestigious activities associated w i t h the fair.
Arensberg and K i m b a l l identify the cuaird, the evening gathering o f the old
men o f the c o m m u n i t y , as playing the most decisive role i n p o l i t i c a l and
social life. The c o m m u n i t y regulates its internal affairs through the cuaird —
" i t is here public o p i n i o n is f o r m u l a t e d " (p. 184). Once again, the exclusion
of w o m e n is q u i c k l y dismissed; "The w o m e n do not go on cuaird like the
men. Their sphere o f activity is better confined w i t h i n the family sphere"
(p. 196). They do n o t investigate whether such confinement is reflected i n
the status and prestige position she occupies. Indeed, they present an ambiva­
lent explanation o f the status o f w o m e n i n relation to the cuaird. They claim
that, while w o m e n do not take part i n the cuaird, they are not excluded or
treated lightly (p. 196). A t the old men's cuaird, the w o m a n o f the house is
nearly always present. "She remains silent or is ignored" so long as their talk
deals w i t h the w o r l d o f the men's interests b u t , w h e n talk turns to her sphere,
she is consulted and ready t o take an active part (p. 196). Arensberg and
K i m b a l l seem to have presented a misleading interpretation of the women's
role regarding the cuaird. While they note the exclusion o f the w o m e n they
simultaneously maintain they are not excluded or treated l i g h t l y . But their
evidence points to the contrary — i t details how the w o m e n have had a position
of non-participation created for them i n one o f the most active, p o w e r f u l
social structures o f that t i m e .
McNabb (1964) notes that "the chief institutions . . . are so organised and
related t o each other as t o guarantee the a u t h o r i t y of the father and the con­
servation o f p r o p e r t y " (p. 243). He does n o t explore however h o w , i n order
to do this, they must necessarily be mobilised against farm wives/women. I n
order to u p h o l d the a u t h o r i t y of the father and conserve his ownership o f
p r o p e r t y , the continued marginalisation o f w o m e n is essential. He describes
h o w the p a r t i c i p a t i o n of farmers and farm labourers i n one farming organisa­
t i o n , M u i n t i r na T i r e , reflects t r a d i t i o n a l class structures (p. 2 0 8 ) ; farmers
occupy the f r o n t r o w seats and speak more often, while farm labourers sit at
the back "and do all their talking outside the d o o r " (p. 208). This valuable
insight i n t o stratification i n rural Ireland fails, however, to pick up o n the
marginal p o s i t i o n occupied b y w o m e n — i t is n o t a question of whether they
occupy front or back r o w seats, because they are absent.
McNabb identifies c o m m u n i t y organisations w h i c h were developing at that
t i m e as organised forces o f change. B u t he does n o t consider whether the
manner i n w h i c h these organisations operate, w h o the members are and the
issues they address w i l l determine i f they are agents o f change or props for
the existing order. Regarding the position occupied by w o m e n , i t seems to
be the latter. New farming educational groups and structures continue to be
aimed at " y o u n g m e n " , those w h o always had access to farming knowledge.
Farming organisations now operate at a national and international level " w e l d ­
ing the farmers i n t o a power group capable o f influencing national p o l i c y "
(p. 246). But these organisations continued and continue t o be p r i m a r i l y male
dominated and, i n representing farmers at a national and international level,
they present i t as a masculine industry. McNabb claims the development o f
the Irish C o u n t r y w o m e n ' s Association ( I C A ) , while having an unambitious
programme, w i l l be significant i n that " f o r the first t i m e , w o m e n have the
o p p o r t u n i t y t o assume an institutionalised role outside o f the h o m e " (p. 246).
As a result, w o m e n w i l l have a greater influence o n c o m m u n i t y affairs. McNabb
provides an understanding o f the extent o f women's non-participation i n
farming institutions and organisations. This new i n s t i t u t i o n a l role is a novelty.
But the fact that w o m e n are unused to having a p l a t f o r m w i l l have implications
for the way i t develops and is used. I t w o u l d also have been f r u i t f u l i f McNabb
had recognised the significance o f their p l a t f o r m being placed outside o f the
central farming arena. I t could also be argued that the increased involvement
of w o m e n i n I C A - p r o m p t e d c o m m u n i t y affairs corroborates their unrecog­
nised farm household/work role. Their activities include voluntary cooking
and organising o f meals for local events, organising outings for local children
and events for the elderly (Shortall, 1990).
I n his discussion o f power structures o n Inis Beag, Messenger (1969) dis­
tinguishes between f o r m a l and i n f o r m a l c o n t r o l structures. These structures
define the parameters o f social behaviour. F o r m a l c o n t r o l structures achieve
this t h r o u g h the negative threat o f physical punishment or banishment and
the positive reward o f government services. I n f o r m a l c o n t r o l structures use
gossip and ridicule as negative force and group approval as a positive reward
(p. 55). Positions i n the f o r m a l c o n t r o l system are occupied b y administrators
of local and national government services, politicians, bailiffs, government
guards and officials. Positions i n the i n f o r m a l structure are occupied b y the
bishop, the parish priest, the curate, the headmaster and the " K i n g " (the
local entrepreneur or " g o m b e e n " man). Messenger notes that the f o r m u l a t i o n
of p u b l i c o p i n i o n , p o l i t i c a l and social life and local policies "rest largely i n
the hands o f government officials and the priest, headmaster and K i n g " (p. 6 6 ) .
While he provides a useful i n t r o d u c t i o n t o the power structure o f the island,
Messenger does n o t address the positions occupied or unoccupied b y w o m e n .
O f all the f o r m a l / i n f o r m a l social c o n t r o l positions he details, n o t one is occu­
pied b y an island w o m a n . Equally as startling as this is the fact that i t does
n o t even warrant a c o m m e n t f r o m Messenger. He does n o t explore the sources
of legitimation o f the women's absence f r o m formal and i n f o r m a l power
structures or w h y they acquiesce t o their o w n exclusion. The fact that w o m e n
are n o t present i n these structures is a non-issue.
B r o d y (1973) describes the bar as " t h e focus o f c o m m u n i t y l i f e " (p. 160).
I t is where " m e n meet and discuss". Local w o m e n do n o t frequent the bars,
they meet i n the shop. He says that those least involved i n farming life are also
the least likely t o go t o bars and least at ease w i t h the bar's ways, and they
are the least c o m m i t t e d to life i n the farming society (p. 161). He describes
those w h o spend most t i m e and feel most at ease i n the shop as those "furthest
removed f r o m farm w o r k . I t follows that they are also most removed f r o m
any c o m m i t m e n t t o staying i n the countryside at a l l " (p. 163). B u t there is a
fundamental difference between being least c o m m i t t e d to life i n a farming
c o m m u n i t y and being most excluded b y life i n a farming c o m m u n i t y . McNabb
(1964) w h o also describes the bar as the place where m e n meet t o "discuss
business and local events" (p. 233), gives us more o f an insight i n t o the social
customs w h i c h p r o h i b i t the presence o f w o m e n : " A respectable w o m a n w o u l d
never set a foot inside one o f these places unless there was a grocery shop
attached. She certainly never drinks i n the local b a r " (p. 233). I n this way,
w o m e n are excluded f r o m the most i m p o r t a n t meeting place where business
is discussed i n f o r m a l l y . Her absence is almost virtuous — the bar is n o t con­
sidered a f i t place for a "respectable w o m a n " . Simarlarly, i t w o u l d seem more
appropriate for B r o d y t o deduce that those w h o frequent the shop i n Inishkillane are n o t those furthest removed from farm w o r k b u t those w h o receive
least recognition for their farm w o r k or are furthest removed f r o m farming
structures.
T w o m e y (1976) considers i t likely that the participation o f farm wives i n
structures and organisations concerning the farm business w i l l increase their
involvement i n decisions and tasks. However, he overlooks the extent to w h i c h
many o f these structures and organisations discourage her involvement and
reinforce her marginalised position. He acknowledges that agricultural advisers
have often attempted t o encourage the a d o p t i o n o f new farm practices b y
w o r k i n g w i t h the farm operator or husband alone (p. 2) and elsewhere he says
that the involvement o f wives i n expansion programmes should have implica­
tions for the advisory service (p. 32). The level o f involvement of farm wives
i n information-seeking activities is expected to be positively associated w i t h
their level o f involvement i n farm decisions — i t "generally strengthens their
bargaining position i n decision-making because they can draw o n knowledge
and experiences relevant to the content o f the decision" (p. 64). Again,
T w o m e y overlooks the manner i n w h i c h agricultural organisations subtly dis­
courage wives f r o m becoming i n f o r m e d about the farm business. Irish agricul­
tural services f o l l o w a p o l i c y of addressing n o t i f i c a t i o n o f farm walks, demon­
strations and courses to husbands. This t a c i t l y suggests to wives that they are
n o t expected or encouraged to attend. The l o w female attendance then acts
as a further deterrent c o n f i r m i n g the idea for many w o m e n that they have
no legitimate place at these activities (Shortall, 1990). A superficial investiga­
t i o n o f a positive relationship between farm wives' involvement i n i n f o r m a t i o n seeking activities and farm decision-making processes overlooks the extent to
w h i c h the i n f o r m a t i o n farm wives have access to is somewhat predetermined
b y other factors.
T w o m e y maintains too that the modern farm family i n rural Ireland w i l l
become more egalitarian w i t h the increased participation o f family members,
including wives, i n voluntary organisations. B u t , like M c N a b b , he fails t o
examine the nature o f the voluntary organisations w o m e n become involved i n .
Most extend their unpaid servicing role i n t o the c o m m u n i t y through their
voluntary activities — cooking for local events, organising outings, fund-raising
and maintaining c o m m u n i t y property. The organisations men typically become
involved i n do n o t have the same servicing role (Shortall, 1990). Similarly,
Hannan and Katsiaouni suggest that the participation o f husbands and wives
i n f o r m a l organisation membership, i n the mass media, and the "increasing
collaboration i n a market economy w h i c h w o u l d involve the husband-father i n
ever wider networks o f market relationships and his wife i n more consumption
orientated relationships" (p. 91) w i l l expose them t o meaningful alternative
ways o f organising family roles. But the depth o f the alternatives provided
b y these external reference groups are questionable; farming groups reaffirm
the industry as a male preserve — i t is the father they envisage becoming more
involved i n market relationships, while the wife becomes increasingly involved
i n consumption orientated relationships. Thus, contact w i t h external reference
groups is n o t necessarily liberating — here i t seems to be supporting the legiti­
macy o f the fundamental order o f the social structure.
V I I CONCLUSION
I n more recent years, many critical feminist studies have focused a t t e n t i o n
o n the lives and w o r k o f w o m e n (Oakley, 1974; Oakley, 1982; Raphael,
1 9 7 5 ; M i t c h e l l and Oakley, 1 9 7 9 ; G o o d e , 1 9 7 0 ) . Other studies have questioned
the sociological theories w h i c h were the basis of feminist research. (Beechey,
1978; D e l p h y , 1 9 8 1 ; Eichler, 1980; Sanday, 1973). When these patterns are
related t o Irish farm wives, i t is clear that more a t t e n t i o n has been focused
o n the lives and w o r k o f w o m e n on Irish farms i n more recent years. Despite
this, there remains a paucity o f knowledge and statistical data o n their activi­
ties. When the theoretical underpinning o f some o f the sociological and anthro­
pological studies o f r u r a l Irish life are examined, we o b t a i n an insight i n t o
h o w this has arisen. There are many questions pertaining t o the lives of farm
wives w h i c h are n o t raised. The persistence o f the patrilineal line, its links
w i t h status, prestige, economic power and the implications for w o m e n o f
being c o n t i n u a l l y excluded f r o m this have n o t been analysed. I t has c o n t r i ­
buted greatly to the pervasive i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f men w i t h the land. This, i n
t u r n , seems t o have influenced what is defined as " f a r m w o r k " . " F a r m w o r k "
is n o t all the w o r k essential to the farm business b u t rather the farm w o r k
w h i c h is carried o u t b y m e n . Hence, the narrow parameters w h i c h o n l y allow
a l i m i t e d knowledge o f the w o r k o f farm wives are established. The unques­
tioned acceptance o f the patrilineal line leads these studies to question the
economic, social and c u l t u r a l consequences o f inheritance patterns for sons
w i t h o u t any consideration that similar questions could be raised for w o m e n .
The fundamental legitimacy, restrictiveness and continual perpetuation o f
prescribed spheres o f activity are n o t rigorously scrutinised. These spheres,
t h r o u g h t i m e restraints and perceptions o f what are the legitimate activities
of each, allow differential access to recognised farming resources, knowledge
and skills. I t affects too the w a y i n w h i c h agricultural advisers and professionals
dealing w i t h the farm relate to farm wives. Farming organisations and groups
are male dominated and present farming as a male industry at local, national
and international levels. The involvement of a w o m a n is seen as an aberrant
situation b y b o t h the farming organisations and the farming media, w h i c h
also contributes t o the pervasive perception o f farming as a male industry
(Shortall, 1990).
While the studies reviewed provide us w i t h an insight i n t o the lives o f farm
w o m e n , they seem to have been restrained b y the authors' acceptance o f the
"unquestioned" fundamentals o f the order o f the rural situation. There are a
number of crucial questions central t o an understanding o f gender issues w h i c h
remain unasked. What are the sources o f economic, social and political pres­
tige i n the farming context? We do not k n o w w h y the w o r k and activities o f
men and w o m e n are valued differently and receive differing amounts o f recog­
n i t i o n . N o r do we k n o w w h y the structures o f farming life are organised and
pertain to w o m e n i n a manner w h i c h shows l i t t l e recognition for their w o r k .
Neither has there been any rigorous analysis o f w h y w o m e n are so n o t a b l y
absent from farming structures. These are some o f the questions w h i c h future
studies o f rural life must ask.
REFERENCES
A R E N S B E R G , C , a n d S . K I M B A L L , 1 9 4 0 . Family
and Community
in Ireland,
Harvard:
H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 2 n d edition, 1 9 6 8 .
B E E C H E Y , V . , 1 9 7 8 . " W o m e n a n d P r o d u c t i o n : A C r i t i c a l A n a l y s i s of S o m e Sociological
T h e o r i e s of Women's W o r k " , i n A . K u h n a n d A . M . Walpe (eds.), Feminism
ism — Women
and Modes
of Production,
and
Material­
L o n d o n : Routledge a n d K e g a n P a u l .
B O U Q U E T , M A R Y , 1 9 8 4 . "Women's W o r k i n R u r a l South-West E n g l a n d " , i n N . L o n g
(ed.), Family
and Work in Rural Societies,
B R O D Y , H . , 1 9 7 3 . Inishkillane
— Change
L o n d o n : Tavistock.
and Decline
in the West of Ireland,
London:
T h e Penguin Press.
BUTTEL,
F . H . , a n d G . W . G I L L E S P I E , 1 9 8 4 . " T h e S e x u a l D i v i s i o n of F a r m H o u s e h o l d
L a b o u r : A n E x p l o r a t o r y S t u d y of the S t r u c t u r e of O n - F a r m and O f f - F a r m L a b o u r
A l l o c a t i o n A m o n g F a r m M e n and W o m e n " , Rural Sociology,
V o l . 4 9 , N o . 2, p p . 1 8 3 - 2 0 9 .
D E L P H Y , C , 1 9 8 1 . " W o m e n i n Stratification Studies", in H e l e n R o b e r t s (ed.),
Feminist
Research,
Doing
L o n d o n : Routledge a n d K e g a n P a u l .
D E S E R A N , F . A . , W . W . F A L K , a n d P. J E N K I N S , 1 9 8 4 . " D e t e r m i n a n t s of E a r n i n g s of F a r m
F a m i l i e s i n the U . S , " , Rural Sociology,
V o l . 49, No. 2, pp. 210-229.
D I O N , M . , and S . W E L S H , 1 9 9 0 . " P a r t i c i p a t i o n of W o m e n i n the L a b o u r F o r c e : A C o m ­
parison B e t w e e n the F a r m a n d the T o t a l P o p u l a t i o n " , Paper given at " R u r a l and S m a l l
T o w n Canada: E c o n o m i c and Social Reality" Conference, Ottawa, October 1990.
D U G G A N , C , 1 9 8 7 . " F a r m i n g W o m e n of F a r m e r s ' Wives? W o m e n i n the F a r m i n g Press"
i n C . C u r t i n , P. J a c k s o n a n d B . O ' C o n n o r (eds.), Gender
in Irish
Society,
Galway:
G a l w a y U n i v e r s i t y Press, p p . 5 4 - 7 0 .
3 . F o r a c o m p r e h e n s i v e d e s c r i p t i o n of h o w the farming m e d i a has marginalised w o m e n see Duggan
( 1 9 8 7 ) . S h e traces the t r e a t m e n t of w o m e n b y the farming press f r o m the m i d - 1 9 5 0 s . S h e highlights
the m a n y w a y s i n w h i c h w o m e n are presented as c o n s u m e r s , w h i l e their h u s b a n d s are treated as pro­
d u c e r s . T h e f a r m i n g activities of w o m e n , w h i c h she clarifies, are ignored b y the f a r m i n g press.
E I C H L E R , M . , 1980.
Science,
THE
The Double
Standard
- A Feminist
Critique
of Feminist
Social
London: Groom Helm L t d .
ECONOMIST,
1 9 8 8 . " F o o d for T h o u g h t " , U K 8 0 6 ( 7 5 3 3 ) , p p . 2 4 - 2 5 .
F O X , R . , 1 9 7 8 . The Tory Islanders-A
People
of the Celtic Fringe,
Cambridge: Cambridge
University.
F U L L E R , T O N Y , a n d R . B E L L M A N , 1 9 9 0 . " F a r m F a m i l y L i n k a g e s to the N o n - F a r m
S e c t o r : T h e R o l e of O f f - F a r m I n c o m e of F a r m F a m i l i e s " , Paper given at " R u r a l a n d
Small T o w n Canada: E c o n o m i c and Social Reality" Conference, Ottawa, October
1 9 9 0 (organised b y Stats C a n a d a / A R R G ) .
G A S S O N , R . , 1 9 8 1 . " R o l e s of W o m e n o n F a r m s : A Pilot S t u d y " , Journal
Economics,
of
Agricultural
V o l . 32, N o . l , p p . 11-20.
G I B B O N , P . , 1 9 7 3 . " A r e n s b e r g a n d K i m b a l l R e v i s i t e d " , Economy
and Society,
V o l . 2,
N o . 4, N o v e m b e r .
G O O D E , W J . , 1 9 7 0 . World Revolution
and Family
Pattern,
L o n d o n : T h e F r e e Press.
G O O D W I N , D . , a n d J . M A R L O W E , 1 9 9 0 . " F a r m Wives' L a b o u r F o r c e Participations a n d
E a r n i n g s " , Rural
Sociology,
V o l . 5 5 , N o . 1, p p . 2 5 - 4 3 .
H A N N A N , D . , 1972. "Kinship, Neighbourhood
m u n i t i e s " , The Economic
and Social
Review,
a n d S o c i a l Change i n I r i s h R u r a l C o m ­
V o l . 3, N o . 2, J a n u a r y , p p . 1 6 3 - 1 8 8 .
H A N N A N , D . , a n d R . B R E E N , 1 9 8 7 . " F a m i l y F a r m i n g in I r e l a n d " , i n B . G a l e s k i a n d
E . W i l k e n i n g (eds.), Family
Farming
in Europe
and America,
B o u l d e r : Westview Press,
R u r a l Studies Series.
H A N N A N , D . , a n d L . K A T S I A O U N I , 1 9 7 7 . Traditional
scribed
to Negotiated
Roles
in Farm Families,
Families?
From
Culturally
Pre­
Dublin: T h e E c o n o m i c and Social Research
I n s t i t u t e , Paper N o . 8 7 , J a n u a r y .
H I C K E Y , B . , B . F I N G L E T O N , a n d D . P O W E R , 1 9 8 6 . " T r e n d s i n C o s t s a n d R e t u r n s for
the M a i n F a r m i n g E n t e r p r i s e s " , Situations
and Outlook
in Farming,
Dublin: A n Foras
Taluntais.
H U F F M A N , W . E . , 1 9 7 6 . " T h e V a l u e of the Productive T i m e of F a r m Wives: I o w a , N o r t h
C a r o l i n a a n d O k l a h o m a " , American
Journal
of Agricultural
Economics,
V o l . 58, No. 5,
December.
I R I S H C O U N C I L F O R T H E S T A T U S O F W O M E N , 1 9 8 6 . Regional
gotten
Women,
THE IRISH
TIMES,
Women -
The
For­
Proceedings o f C o n f e r e n c e held i n L i m e r i c k , D e c e m b e r .
1 9 9 0 . W e e k e n d S u p p l e m e n t , S a t u r d a y , O c t o b e r 6.
K E S S L E R , E . S . , 1976.
Women - An Anthropological
View, N e w Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t
& Winston.
L O N G , N . ( e d . ) , 1 9 8 4 . Family
Labour,
and
Work in Rural
Societies.
Perspectives
on
Non-Wage
L o n d o n , U K : T a v i s t o c k Publications, I n t r o d u c t i o n p p . 1-30.
M c N A B B , P . , 1 9 6 4 . " S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e " i n J . N e w m a n (ed.), The Limerick
1958-1964,
Rural
Survey
T i p p e r a r y : M u i n t i r n a T i r e R u r a l Publications.
M A T T H E W S , A . , 1 9 8 1 . " W o m e n i n the F a r m L a b o u r F o r c e " , Irish Farmers'
Monthly,
March.
M A T T H E W S , A . , 1986. "Ireland: Rural Development in an Agrarian Society",
Review
of Agricultural
Economics,
M E S S E N G E R , J . , !969.InisBeag-Isle
European
V o l . 1 3 , N o . 3, p p . 3 6 7 - 3 8 9 .
of Ireland,
U S A : H o l t , R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n I n c .
M I T C H E L L , J . , and A . O A K L E Y , 1979. "The Introduction" in Juliet Mitchell and A n n
O a k l e y (eds.), The Rights
and
Wrongs of Women ( 3 r d e d i t i o n ) , G r e a t B r i t a i n : Penguin
Books.
O A K L E Y , A . , 1 9 7 4 . The Sociology
of Housework,
L o n d o n : Martin Robertson.
O A K L E Y , A . , 1 9 8 2 . Subject
Society
Today,
Women — A Powerful
Analysis
of Women's
Experience
in
Glasgow: Fontana.
O ' H A R A , P., 1987.
" A p p r o a c h e s to U n d e r s t a n d i n g Women's I n v o l v e m e n t
in Family
F a r m i n g " , Paper presented at the T h i r d I n t e r n a t i o n a l I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y C o n f e r e n c e of
Women, Dublin, July.
P H E L A N , J . F . , 1 9 8 9 . " T h e C o n t r i b u t i o n of W o m e n to D e v e l o p m e n t
in Rural Areas",
Paper presented for discussion at T h e I r e l a n d - P o l a n d S o c i o l o g y C o n f e r e n c e , Warsaw,
May.
R A P H A E L , D . , 1 9 7 5 . Being Female
— Reproduction,
Power
and Change,
Chicago: Aldine
Publishing C o m p a n y .
R E I M E R , B . , 1 9 8 6 a . " S o u r c e s of F a r m L a b o u r in C o n t e m p o r a r y Q u e b e c " , The
Review
of Sociology
and Anthropology,
Canadian
V o l . 20, N o . 3, pp. 290-301.
R E I M E R , B . , 1 9 8 6 b . " W o m e n a n d F a r m L a b o u r " , Rural Sociology,
V o l . 5 1 , N o . 2, p p . 143-
155.
S A C H S , C . E . , 1 9 8 3 . The Invisible
S A N D A Y , P . R . , 1973.
Anthropologist,
Farmers,
American
V o l . 75, pp. 1682-1700.
S C H E P E R - H U G H E S , N . , 1 9 7 9 . Saints,
Rural Ireland,
New Jersey, U S A : R o m a n and Allanheld.
" T o w a r d s a T h e o r y of the Status of W o m e n " , The
Scholars
and
Schizophrenics
- Mental
Illness
in
U S A : U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press.
S H A V E R , F . , 1 9 9 0 . " W o m e n i n C a n a d i a n A g r i c u l t u r e : A State o f the A r t R e v i e w " , A
revised version of a paper prepared for T h e A g r o - R u r a l Interest G r o u p Meeting ( R e g i n a ,
O c t . 2 3 - 2 4 , 1 9 8 8 ) a n d T h e Congres de l ' A c f a s (Montreal, M a y 15-19, 1 9 8 9 ) .
S H A V E R , F . , 1 9 9 0 . " W o m e n , W o r k a n d T r a n s f o r m a t i o n s in A g r i c u l t u r a l P r o d u c t i o n " ,
The Canadian
Review
of Sociology
and Anthropology,
V'ol. 2 7 , N o . 3, p p . 3 4 1 - 3 5 6 .
S H E R I D A N , R . , 1 9 8 2 . "Women's C o n t r i b u t i o n to F a r m i n g " , i n Farm and Food
Research,
April.
S H O R T A L L , S . , 1 9 9 0 . " F a r m Wives a n d P o w e r - A n E m p i r i c a l S t u d y of the P o w e r R e l a ­
tionships A f f e c t i n g W o m e n on I r i s h F a r m s " , P h . D . T h e s i s , N a t i o n a l University of I r e l a n d
(Unpublished).
T R O U G H T O N , M J . , 1 9 8 6 . " F a r m i n g S y s t e m s in the M o d e r n W o r l d " , Progress
tural Geography,
in
Agricul­
pp. 93-121.
T W O M E Y , T . , 1 9 7 6 . " A S t u d y of the I n v o l v e m e n t o f F a r m Wives i n F a r m , F a r m H o m e
and F a m i l y Decisions
a n d T a s k s " , T h e s i s for Masters o f A g r i c u l t u r a l S c i e n c e , T h e
N a t i o n a l U n i v e r s i t y of I r e l a n d , D u b l i n .
V A R L E Y , T . , 1 9 8 8 . " R u r a l D e v e l o p m e n t a n d C o m b a t i n g Poverty - T h e R u r a l Projects
of the S e c o n d E u r o p e a n C o m b a t Poverty P r o g r a m m e ( 1 9 8 5 - 9 ) in H i s t o r i c a l a n d C o m ­
parative C o n t e x t " , G a l w a y : C e n t r e for C o m m u n i t y D e v e l o p m e n t Studies, S o c i a l Sciences
R e s e a r c h C e n t r e , U n i v e r s i t y College. Research
Report
No.
2.