Additional Information In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:
Housework, Wages, and the Ideology of Labor in the Early Republic Jeanne Boydston traces the history of unpaid domestic labor among white working- and middle-class women in the northeast in colonial and antebellum America. In The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, Friedrich Engels argues that domestic work enslaved women and prevented them from participating in industrialization and the larger economy Yet, like Engels, Gutman defines labor in terms of production, public space, and profit.
Labor does not only occur in public, male spaces. Labor also takes place in homes and is carried out by unpaid women. Thus, Boydston challenges traditional Marxist notions of labor that are defined in terms of profit, public spaces, and mechanical production of goods.
Boydston goes further in her analysis to suggest that scholars must recognize the relationship between domestic labor and industrialization.
This is made clear when Boydston describes the innovations in household technologies that were influenced by industrialization and notions of material consumption.
Recognizing the relationship between labor and industrialization allows Boydston to historicize and challenge notions about the ideology of separate spheres in antebellum America. Other scholars, like Kathryn K. Sklar, have recognized the relationship between domestic labor and industrialization.
In Catharine Beecher, Sklar argues: Yet, Sklar does not challenge scholarly notions about sphere ideology. Rather, Sklar reinforces the notions that sphere ideology was an accepted antebellum reality. Thus, nineteenth-century New England homes remain private, domestic spaces in antebellum reality.
Homes are free of strenuous domestic labor, and are the realms of spiritual mothers basking in cultural and social leisure. Boydston, following Linda K.
The mother and home were perceived as shelters from the dangers of an industrial society. Separate sphere ideology began as a metaphor and was then accepted as reality.
This analysis is important for understanding the relationship between religion, labor, and industrialization. Yet, this analysis is problematic on several levels.
Religious studies historians have discounted the secularization thesis that proliferated through the s. This is deeply problematic because, as Sklar notes in Catharine Beecher, this ideology can be traced to Calvinist beliefs about gender roles. Beecher urged women to teach their children Christian values, and to literally construct a Christian home by modeling the architecture of the home on nineteenth-century church plans.
The domestic economy for Beecher, and other women who promoted or misrecognized the ideology of the gender spheres, mirrored the divine, Protestant economy. Protestants notions about labor, gender, and capitalism are important because nineteenth-century American aligned middle-class respectability with Protestant parlor piety and the marketplace.
But, this is not true. Protestant women brought the marketplace into the home in very specific ways. Protestant advice literature advised women to buy mass-produced products for display in their homes.
Class and social status were central to nineteenth-century Protestants conceptions of home and work. Boydston mentions class in her analysis of home and work.
But, class was not only defined by motherhood in terms of nurturing children. It was defined by the marketplace and things. Mothers were to educate their children and decorate their homes with Christian things.
But decorating homes cost money that many American families did not have. Women were instructed to work to decorate homes so they would appear to be upper-middle class, white Protestants. Women were supposed to present themselves and their homes as if they could afford things and servants.While urban environments improved in many ways, air quality worsened.
Coal used as fuel polluted the air, while the waste of the thousands of horses that pulled carts and carriages lay stinking in the streets until horses were replaced by streetcars and automobiles in the early twentieth century. In common among all these books, and others on the topic, is documentation of a general cultural ideology of separate spheres, grounded in the idea that women belong in the private sphere, and are aliens in the public sphere, and that the reverse was true of men.
The ideology that men should be working and women should be at home with the family. The separate spheres ideology became more distinct in the s in the middle class as the idea that the wife not working became an indicator of wealth and status. -With the advent of this new ideology, middle class women increasingly resented legal restraints.
The ideology that men should be working and women should be at home with the family. The separate spheres ideology became more distinct in the s in the middle class as the idea that the wife not working became an indicator of wealth and status.
-With the advent of this new ideology, middle class women increasingly resented legal restraints. separate spheres afÞrmed that women should be concerned with domes- ticity and remain submissive to men, conÞned to their ﬁproperﬂ private sphere and . This ideology and its impact on women from the industrious middle-classes was most clearly articulated by Davidoff and Hall in their seminal Family Fortunes ( and ) and quickly turned into a paradigm, a ready-made set of lenses through which to understand and explain middle .