Baptists and Bootleggers in the History of the Family

Busy at work on chapter 3 of my book, I was re-reading some material today on gender in the 19th century, and the doctrine of the "separate spheres" in particular. The idea here was that men and women weren't unequal, just "different." Men's reason and competitiveness made them well-suited to the "public spheres" of the market and politics, while women's empathy and care made them well-suited to the "private sphere" of the household. This doctrine became a way to reconcile the increasing sense that men and women really were equals (thanks mostly to the revolution in marriage that made it based on consent and love along with the spread of classical liberal ideas about the inherent rights of individuals)  with the objective circumstances of the 19th century where men had legal advantages such as coverture that enabled them to control economic resources, as well as having the franchise, which women lacked.  How to convince women that they really were equals?  Divide up the "spheres" and proclaim that the spheres are equally valuable and that men are best fitted to one and women the other.

On the economic side, the separate spheres idea became the ideological justification for the calls for both a "family wage" well above free-market rates of pay so that working men did not have to suffer the indignity of their wives or children having to work and various restrictions on women's employment (limited hours, certain jobs off-limits). It will come as no surprise to this crowd that the trade unions were generally in strong support of both of these ideas as the call for a family wage became a way to raise members’ wages, and the restrictions on female employment had the anti-competitive effect of preventing employers from hiring lower-wage women rather than higher-priced union labor.

What's caught my attention today was that Stephanie Coontz in her discussion of this stuff notes that many middle-class observers “not normally sympathetic to unionism” supported these proposals, including members of the clergy interested in protecting fragile women from exposure to the mean old world of work. Well duh! A non-economist like Coontz (who is smart and very well-read) is unlikely to immediately think "Baptists and Bootleggers." Of course the unions and the clergy/moralists were on the same side on this one. As Bruce Yandle noted over 20 years ago, those who gain economically from making a particular activity illegal (e.g., bootleggers gaining from Prohibition) frequently find themselves on the same side of the moralists who wish to abolish their activity altogether (e.g., the “Baptists” supporting Prohibition).  In our own time, this is often why elements of corporate America find themselves in coalitions with environmentalists wishing to regulate or abolish economic activities that are in competition with those of the supportive corporations.

Once again, what comes as a sort of "interesting and surprising observation" to other social scientists (that the clergy found themselves oddly allied with the unionists in arguing for various forms of labor market intervention) is old hat to economists. As much as my recent work has taken me wandering through other disciplines in ways that have genuinely educated me, moments like these make me realize that, in the immortal words of Dorothy, there's no place like home.

Comments

[Meghan Clark]

Similarly, in countries like Pakistan, the cultural norms dictate that women should be sequestered indoors and not work. That the norm manifested in this particular form is hardly arbitrary; Many social configurations are arranged in the interest of demonstration, establishing status and hierarchical positioning relative to others. Since material wealth is often such a status indicator, it's a source of shame to have to have your women work. It implies poverty and an inability of the man to support his household - weakness. It's fortunate, though, because as you point out, while it wouldn't be in men's best interest, it WOULD be in corporations' best interest to open up the competitive pool of potential employees, so that they have access to more talent or skills for a lower cost. Considering the continued rising of economic globalization, it seems likely that corporations may become, either directly or indirectly, a major agent of change in cultural norms, and thus women's rights, around the world.

[DeeWilliams]

What unions were specifically against women in the workforce? Just some quick google searching shows several unions that favorable to women in the workforce.

1) The National Labor Union, formed in 1866, took a stand for womens right to work in the 19th century.

2) Major national unions, like the Cigarmakers and Printers unions, were allowing women to be members as early as 1867.

3) Mary Kenney was hired as an organizer by the American Federation of Labor in 1892.

4)Women themselves were forming their own unions through out the later half of the 1800s (example, Women's Educational and Industrial Union).

It seems to me like accepting women in the workforce (and in unions) became very acceptable, at least by the late 1800s. Why? I don't think the incentives of unions changed. So maybe it's really a question over changing preferences as opposed to changign incentives?

[Steve Horwitz]

I didn't say the unions opposed female employment. What I probably wasn't clear enough about was:

1. They generally opposed the employment of *married* women. That was the idea behind the "family wage" paid to married men. Single women were able to find employment, though not at a higher "family wage."

2. What the unions did support were the various *limits* on female employment, e.g., limited hours or restricting them from taking certain kinds of dangerous jobs. I'm not with my sources at the moment, but I can provide more details in the morning.

Yes, unions hired women, but they, like many others, were skeptical about *married* women and employment was not necessarily offered to women on equal terms thanks to a variety of state interventions such as those noted in 2. above.

[Vedran]

One has to consider the difference between what unions say and what unions do. Since day one, the propaganda has been solidarity amongst oppressed workers. I would need more proof that women were truly welcomed than just statements made by the union.

For example, all bars in the Deep South accept people of all races but how you feel about unfriendly looks of the other patrons and the Confederate flag on the wall is a whole other matter. What is official and what is unofficial reality can be vastly different at times.

Also, the fact that women were organizing their own unions sounds pretty fishy. If they were so welcome in mainstream unions, why would they form their own smaller female-specific unions? Doesn't make much sense to me

I'm not trying to say that you're wrong for sure DeeWilliams, but these are some things to consider.

[Bogdan Enache]

Something in that separate sphere doctrine must have been right if one considers the communist experience. With the coming of the reign of communist equality, women were drafted into the work force, but, notwithstanding the institutionalisation of child raising, they were left with the household work and a large part of the child raising work as well. And with only two weeks of paid time off from work before and after child birth, it wasn't that pleasant. There was a saying in my country in those days, "if you don't have a grandfather (or a grandmother) buy one", because the grandparents ended up raising the children, producing milk and food in general, if they were from the countryside or waiting in line to buy groceries if they were from the city (there were always long lines at the grocery store). This is yet another example of intended consequences of failed social engineering : there's a lag - or more correctly a gap - between between what governments wants to achieve by fiat (in this case, an idea of equality between men and women) and the evolution of the social and cultural norms regarding the underlying realities that cannot be surpassed through legislation. Things got worse for many women, though in a different way, when the regime wanted to encourage birth rates and enacted all kind of punitive or stimulating measures (banning of abortion, social aid per child and so on). Maybe it will be interesting to add a chapter or a few paragraphs in the book on family under communism.

[DeeWilliams]

But I would point out that Mary Kenny O'Sullivan was married when she became an organizer for the American Federation of Labor (the AFL in the current AFL-CIO) in 1892.

http://www.mfh.org/specialprojects/shwlp/site/honorees/sullivan.html

I just want to stress two points. First, the incentives of unions in this example are not totally clear. After all, those individuals that run the union benefit from having more members paying fees that supplement their income.

I would argue that this is why most modern unions don't try to limit the labor force directly. Instead, they seek to expand union membership to cover an entire firm (closed-shops) or an entire industry (writers union is apparently close). Next, they nagotiate wages above competitve market rates and this results in fewer individuals employed.

This jives nicely with the fact that some of the largest unions, like the AFL-CIO, have sought to allow immigrants to join unions.
http://www.aflcio.org/mediacenter/prsptm/sp02282006.cfm

Second, it has always been my impression has always been that the number of women (even married women)in unions grew through out the late 19th and early 20th century. My earlier googling efforts seem to verify this impression.

I can't imagine how the unions' incentives changed during that time as to make it less profitable to forbid women workers. If those inventives did not change, maybe it was a change in preferences. It simply became more acceptable for women to work due to changing moral standards. Ever since Gary Becker, economists have discounted most arguments based on changes in prefence. The argument ussually goes that "changes in preferences can explain everything, then they explain nothing." That may be true as far as it goes, but that doesn't mean changes in preferences don't matter. Only that they hard to identify.

[Steven Horwitz]

Agreed on the point about preferences Dee. And in the larger scope of my book, changes in preferences do come into play, even given that they are hard to identify. I think this is a point where Austrians can offer something different from Becker.