Bending Borders of Gendered Labour Division ... - Wiley Online Library

Bending Borders of Gendered Labour Division on Farms: the Case of Finland Tiina Silvasti

I

t is often thought, in the Nordic countries at least, that the social position of farm women is better in Scandinavia than in many other places in Europe. In all Scandinavian countries, women have representatives in the Farmers’ Unions (although they are still less represented than men). Rural women in Finland have influential organisations of their own and they co-operate internationally with European women’s organisations. In all Scandinavian countries, daughters and sons have equal rights to inherit land and to be the successor of the family farm (Johdahl 1994). The welfare state guarantees women an independent position in society and socially women are considered as individuals with their own rights and needs. Finnish social security policy differs considerably from, for example, ‘the breadwinner’s principle’ as a way of organising social security (see GelukGeluk 1994). There are systems for maternity leave and other benefits, as well as legal guarantees of municipal daycare for all children under school age. However, although this list of achievements in gender considerations is extensive, in practice alongside this modernity and progressiveness, there still exist many traditional cultural features that determine the everyday life and position of women in farm families in Finland. Until the 1990’s, women’s position on farms was a neglected subject in the field of agricultural and rural studies in Finland. With the tide of feminist approaches, researchers began to take an interest in the societal situation of farm wives. Findings paralleled results all over the Europe. Women do a considerable share of the work that is essential for running the farm, but the definition of agricultural work is so narrow that a major part of women’s work input is excluded. (Siiskonen 1990; Sireni 2000; Sireni 2001) The distinction between paid and unpaid work, gender bias in determining paid work and a narrow understanding of productive work have all led to the weaker status and respect of farm wives compared with their spouses (see also Whatmore 1991; Shortall 1992; Niskanen 1998b). This article considers the modernisation of peasant culture in Finland. It is the view of this paper that many farmers still have a traditional peasant way of life, and that the most important part of this way of life is the ‘cultural script’ of maintaining the continuity of the family farm (see for example Segalen 1983; Segalen 1987; Salamon 1992; Silvasti 2001; de Haan 1994). The ideal of continuity Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK 350 Main Street, Malden, MA02148, USA

Sociologia Ruralis, Vol 43, Number 2, April 2003 ©European Society for Rural Sociology ISSN 0038−0199

Bending borders

155

leads to complex questions concerning, for example, the internal dynamics of the family as well relationships with the land, nature and environment. As the farmers’ autobiographies employed in this study reveal, the gendered division of labour remains under-considered and under-conceived when such issues are explored. In the field of gender studies, gendered division of labour as well as the masculine nature of farm work and patriarchal power structures typical on family farms have all been well documented. Despite this, the position of women remains a littlediscussed subject in the institutions of agriculture. Indeed, it has been reported that farm wives willingly defend those family values and networks of social relationships that are defined as traditional from the framework of modern society (Alston 1995; Brandt 1999). On the other hand, researchers have investigated why rural women seem to be reluctant to adopt emancipatory attitudes or to organise active movements to improve their rights which, from a feminist point of view, appear to be denied. Farm women’s behaviour thereby seems to contradict the feminist notion, under modernisation theory, that gender equality will improve when rural societies reach a higher level of development during the process of modernisation. According to Finnish folklore and historical sources, women’s position in agrarian society was weak, and young women’s position was especially poor (Mäkelä 1989; Malmberg 1990; Apo 1993). The modernisation of agriculture has surely had a positive impact on women’s position on farms, but it is not self-evident that it has unambiguously improved it. The presumption of modernisation as improving gender equality is problematic because it ignores the regional, cultural and historical nature of rural societies and the people living within them (Brandt 1999). As such, modernisation theory reflects its predominantly urban origins (see Delphy 1984; Sachs 1996). In the course of studying farmers’ way of life, changes in women’s perception of their position on farms has proved to be a particularly interesting issue. The women investigated in this study are all full-time farmers or farm wives. They do not express any feelings of subordination on the farm or in the family, neither, in general, do they mention gender inequality in agriculture. Instead, they are more concerned by inequality between farm women and other women, such as wage earners, in Finnish society. In practice, it is often difficult to find daycare for children in the countryside or difficult to obtain full maternity leave because of the lack of replacements. Farm women do not experience gendered division of labour as a source of inequality in itself or within the family as a forum for subordination (cf. Delphy 1984). However, they do want recognition for the work they do, defined as women’s work in the field of agriculture. The data presented here provides no reasons to presume that there is something wrong with farm women when they do not adopt emancipatory ideas or do not consider themselves to be subordinated. Instead, this paper seeks to study agriculture as a distinctive cultural context of constructing womanhood and to explore the possible problems that might emerge within that special context. The data for the study comprise 18 narrative autobiographies obtained through interview (10 male and 8 female informants) and some 25 autobiographical texts (17 female and 8 male writers) produced for a writing competition organised by the Folklore Archives of the Finnish Literature Society and the Union for Rural Education in 1997. The autobiographies are from full-time farmers, farm wives and women farmers aged from 26 to 65 years. Occupational autobiographies were

156

Silvasti

collected through narrative interviews (Rosenthal 1993). Interviews are understood as a discourse between speakers and reveal ways in which the meanings of questions and responses are contextually grounded and jointly constructed by interviewer and informant (Mishler 1986; Denzin 1989; Kvale 1996). Gender questions or divisions of labour were not especially the focus of the autobiographical interviews. That the women were living and working on the farm created, both in the context of the interview as well as for the occupational autobiography, a framework which revealed significant information concerning work and preceived divisions of labour. The writing competition was targeted at farmers under the heading From the heart of the land. The writers were allowed to choose freely the subject of their essays, although the instructions also suggested certain themes: life as a farmer or as a farm wife was one of those suggested. In this paper, I analyse two stories, which to my mind articulate very clearly the traditional cultural models that govern being a woman on a farm. My analytical approach is to examine the prevailing model through two exceptions to it. Hence, both cases are women who have adopted an active role and identity of being a farmer. They are young single women in charge of their farms. The breaking of the cultural script of agrarian womanhood makes these stories exceptional in the context of farmer autobiographies. That is also why analysing these stories reveals clearly borderlines of family hierarchy and the cultural model of the division of labour bound to gender in an agrarian context. Women on farms and the peasant way of life The ‘way of life’ is a subjective, specific combination of the activities of an individual, family or larger social group within the framework of the subject’s life history and living conditions. It contains three general dimensions: historical and present conditions, activity and consciousness (Roos 1983). Way of life indicates the wholeness of life – how culture is connected to wholeness of life, social structures, models of production and conditions in nature (Allardt 1987). Since it is impossible to write about or otherwise explicate a way of life in its entirety, another concept is required to describe various components of the commonly shared behavioural patterns and cultural models that are distinctive to farmers. A useful mechanism for doing this is the concept of script. Social interactionism defines ‘social scripting’ as a process where people are subconsciously and consciously conditioned to follow rules and adapt values and behavioural patterns determined by society, its subculture or some ethnic or socioeconomic group (Simon and Gagnon 1984; Murray and Leigh 1995). Parents, in particular, influence the way children think and feel about the rural and about the agrarian or peasant way of life as well as how they position themselves within their own subculture. For example, parents provide models for and ideas about gender roles, they influence or determine succession arrangements and expectations, and they contribute to the instilling of cultural meanings about the land and place. Once internalised, these messages become scripts that influence children’s values and behaviour. Scripts are a kind of mental map (Money 1993) that are developed and used to organise behaviour along socially appropriate lines. Analysis of the autobiographical data indicated that three scripts emerged

Bending borders

157

which strongly organised farmers’ way of life: (1) continuity of the family farm; (2) the gendered division of labour, and; (3) a relationship with nature mediated by productionist farming strategy. In the traditional peasant family in Finland, there was a strong gender hierarchy. Division of labour was bound to gender and in the agrarian culture, men were considered superior to women (Apo 1993; Määttänen 1993; Östman 2000). Women have been legally equal to men in their ability and entitlement to inherit and farm land since 1879 (Jutikkala 1958). However, although this has been legally possible for 120 years, farms are still generally handed down to the sons of farming families in Finland as well as all over Europe (de Haan 1994; Haugen 1994; Niskanen 1998a). Usually only if there is no son, or the son of the family is ill or otherwise unable to farm, may the daughter take over the farm. In these cases, she is usually married to a younger son of another farmer and her husband becomes the master of the farm (Moring 1993). In other circumstances, women usually became, and still become, associated with a farm by marrying an inheriting son of a farm family. Favouring male successors is strongly intertwined to the script of gendered division of labour. If there is a son in the family, there is a strong effort to socialise daughters to the traditional female role on farms. With farm managament and the greater part of field and machine work being traditionally defined as ‘men’s work’, daughters cannot easily develop abilities to take over the farm (Haugen 1994). In other words, farmers often consciously try to socialise one of their sons to be the successor, while other children, especially daughters, are brought up to leave the farm. During their school years, these other children are encouraged to educate themselves in order to find an occupation and later a home outside the farm. Typically, when the daughters leave their home farms and the countryside, they rarely return to marry successors of other farms (Silvasti 2001). Consequently, in spite of the equal inheritance system, practically the only way to get a position as a farm woman is to marry a farmer. To become a farmer can be even more difficult. The cultural script of favouring male successors, the traditionally weak position of daughters-in-law, and the low social status of the work of farm women in general, have led to a situation where young women tend not to be interested in the occupation and role of being a farm woman (Delphy 1984; O’Hara 1994; Whatmore 1994; Sachs 1996; Högbacka 2000). This presents a problem for the fulfilment of the cultural script of continuity of the family farm because being single is a real threat to the ideal of continuity. Therefore, to maintain the viability of agricultural and rural communities, it is sometimes considered desirable for more daughters to be encouraged to be farm successors. A woman as a farmer Jaana is a 27-year-old successor to an old family farm. She has an older brother but because of his illness, it was always clear that he could not continue his father’s occupation. Jaana’s parents maintained a traditional peasant way of life. Because they wanted to maintain the continuity of the family farm, Jaana was their only choice. It is not surprising, therefore, that Jaana always wanted to be a farmer. To that end, she completed a Master’s degree in agriculture and forestry. For her, agriculture is a career: “I remember how my parents always said that Jaana will be isäntä – the master

158

Silvasti

of the farm”. In the Finnish language, there are two words that need to be considered in this context, isäntä and emäntä. The former is a male farmer. The word has a very strong connotation of power and masculinity. Isäntä is the master of a farm. He is the one who manages the farm. He is responsible for the tasks assigned to males according to the gendered division of labour in the cultural script. Previously the master, isäntä, was always and definitely male. Emäntä then, is the wife of the master. She is responsible for the work which, according to the traditional peasant script, must be feminine in the division of labour. Although she is the dominating figure within the household (domestic sphere) and is respected as such, it is isäntä who fundamentally dominates. To call a man emäntä would be a major insult. Emäntä is definitely a female. As Jaana’s parents did not have a son to continue the farm, they consciously tried to raise their daughter in the role of successor. Jaana thought that in the beginning her parents calling her isäntä was some sort of joke. However, she internalised not only the role of successor, but also the role of isäntä. In her family, her gender was not an obstacle for ‘men’s work’ and she got used to working with her father ever since she was a child. When she now calls herself isäntä, it is no longer a joke. By saying this, she means to point out that she is the one who runs the farm and does the farming practice. She is the manager. She will not become emäntä even after marriage, because she will maintain control over all the core tasks that make her isäntä. In a significant way, she disconnects gender from the occupational role traditionally strongly connected with gender. For her, being isäntä is an occupation not dependent on gender. Jaana’s case is especially interesting because despite this re-designation of occupational and gender roles within the division of labour, she still has a very traditional idea of the gender roles of farm families in general. When asked, why does she call herself isäntä and not conventionally emäntä she answers: Jaana: “Because – of course I like cleaning and baking, but since I was a little child I have preferred to work in the fields”. Interviewer: “So, there is a clear division of labour on farms, I mean which are the tasks of emäntä or isäntä?” Jaana: “Oh yes, on a farm there is. In principle, a woman should by her nature ... take care of household chores and so on, but on a farm most of the real farm work is everything other than the household chores. That is why I am isäntä”.

Jaana’s ideas about gender roles and the gendered division of labour are clearly traditional. When asked to give the reasons why she calls herself isäntä, she described the different duties of women and men. When asked about the division of roles, she also specified how women should act. At the same time, she revealed not only the traditional cultural script concerning the division of labour, but also the culturally consistent interpretation of woman and womanhood – that by nature women should take care of the maintenance of the family. In Jaana’s discourse, the traditional gender bound model of the division of labour and the associated role models are consistent with the cultural script. She has the traditional idea of the division of labour including images of woman as emäntä.

Bending borders

159

However, she does not take these traditionally inflexible and static categories as given. Instead, she actively constructs a model of the division of labour to be suitable for her purposes. Her model includes both womanhood and at the same time being isäntä. Crucially, she does not act as an ‘independent woman farmer’ and hence step out of the traditional script. She accepts the traditional roles and in her narrative she uses the traditional interpretations of what it is to be a woman or a man in a farming context (see also Haugen 1994; Brandth and Haugen 1997; Bryant 1999a). Specifically, she acts according to the rules of the traditional peasant script, but in a very modern way she navigates in the system of traditional role models and chooses features most appropriate to herself. Thus, she is not a ‘woman farmer’, she is isäntä. This is her way of renewing and modernising the traditional script while still preserving central parts of it. Jaana holds on to the most crucial goal of the peasant script, the continuity of the farm, as well as accepting the traditional roles and the division of labour, but as an individual she is capable of seeing options and is free enough to make reflexive choices connecting her needs and goals as a woman and a farmer. Jaana finds free interpretational space between traditional cultural expectations and her own possibilities and she is able to take advantage of it. According to Giddens (1991), life politics is a politics of choice. It presumes a certain level of emancipation and is basically politics of life style. Moreover: Life politics concerns political issues which flow from the process of self-actualisation in post traditional context, where globalising influences intrude deeply into reflexive project of self, and conversely where processes of self-realisation influence global strategies (Giddens 1991, p. 214).

Consequently, Giddens sees self-identity as a reflexive achievement, free from the fixities of tradition and from conditions of hierarchical domination. From that kind of point of view Jaana is constructing her narrative self-identity by making politics of life decisions, which is life politics. In addition to the choices made, the contexts of those choices are equally interesting. It is especially fascinating to notice that the new interpretational space that Jaana finds is located precisely inside of the traditional script of gendered division of labour. By making exceptional personal choices she is bending, but not breaking, cultural expectations determined by traditional scripts. The most important and vitally essential cultural script for a peasant way of life, the script of continuity of the family farm, is carried forward by re-articulating the borders of gendered division of labour from the changed circumstances of the family’s social life. This means that the peasant way of life is not disappearing in the course of modernisation. Instead, cultural scripts that are organising the way of life are reconstructed to be compatible with the changing ideals of equality between the sexes as well as generations. Isäntä and female suffering The cultural model of the male as head of the farm is not restricted to the peasant script and farmer communities, but it has been internalised by the surrounding communities and institutions as well (Haugen 1998). Sometimes, being of the ‘wrong’ sex turns out to be a problem for a woman as head of the farm. Anne took

160

Silvasti

over the running of her family farm when she was 24 years old. There was no son in the family and Anne, who had internalised the script of continuity, felt obligated to continue the family farm. The enterprise on the farm was breeding hogs. In the beginning, Anne was full of optimism and plans. “When I took over the farm, I felt strong and I dreamed of developing the business. I knew that there was a lot of work to do and that it wouldn’t be easy, but I believed that I will be successful. I signed the contract without any suspicions that I would not succeed as a woman in an occupation that demands strength and skills that are usually not connected to women”.

However, after a while, the practical routines made her life very hard and she lost customers: “I think that the reason was that I became isäntä. I suppose that the customers thought that a young, beautiful woman is not convincing in the business of breeding hogs. I believe that if I were a man, the confidence of the customers in my professional skills would have been greater and the trade better”.

The ‘wrong sex’ created a vicious circle for Anne. Since she was not convincing in this role, trade declined and the business became less profitable. Potential customers interpreted this decline as a lack of skill, which in turn drove away more customers and thus increased the economic difficulties on the farm. Essential linkage partners, such as customers, other farmers and farmers’ organisations, seemed to find it difficult to challenge their traditional script that establishes men as the natural and rightful managers. In an interesting way, Anne in her narrative refers to body politics – how power and conflict return ultimately to the individual body. Anne was not only a woman, but also young and beautiful. In the quote above, the typical body politics of the agricultural context is crystallised. It is not only a question about social position or masterhood, nor economic relationships or owning, it is also a question about the body – its size, form and power (Bryant 1999a, b; Henley 2001). It can be argued therefore, that it was Anne’s sex that caused her business troubles. After an optimistic beginning, she experienced herself as a stranger in her own surroundings, and in her context she also was a stranger. Despite the fact that she owned the means of production, which she interpreted as making her the head of her farm, culturally she was believed to be neither credible nor competent. According to the peasant script, she lacked something essential, an important quality that was needed to legitimate her position (see also Alston 1995). The problem culminates at the level of self. In the beginning, Anne tried to gain credibility and reliability with the stakeholders who were important to her and her business by acting like a hardened professional. She thereby sought to step out of her femininity, to behave like a ‘real man’ when at the market. Despite this, her skills and capability were being continuously questioned. It took several years until she realised that she did not need to be “a man with 50 years’ experience and outlook in agriculture”, but that she “could bravely be a 28-year-old woman and still respect myself”. Anne faced problems in assuming her social position as the master of the farm as her masterhood was regularly questioned. She continuously had to justify her position

Bending borders

161

“When strangers visit the farm, they usually ask for isäntä. Last summer, for example, a couple drove to the farmyard and after shaking hands with me they asked if the man working with a load of straw was isäntä. “No, he is a hired hand”, I replied. “Oh, here comes isäntä”, they said, feeling better when my boyfriend, who works at a different trade, came from the other direction. All the time it makes me angry and depressed that my work doesn’t get the respect it deserves, but people just want to find someone who satisfies their images of the head of the farm and that is a man. It doesn’t matter if he is my father, a hired hand, or a boyfriend”.

Economic difficulties, problems with assuming her social position as master of the farm, and feelings of being an outsider, being a stranger in her professional community, gradually led Anne to experience psychological problems. She decided to give up breeding hogs and at the same time she gave up the dream of maintaining continuity of the family farm. “Farm work is not considered to be physically so heavy anymore. Still I often feel that I am not strong enough and that this job is too heavy for me. I also understand it myself, that this kind of work is not suitable for a woman ... From the very beginning I had a dream of the future of this farm. Now I have to admit that the only choice for me is to break the wings of this dream and acknowledge the inability in front of this burden of work. I have to give up believing in my strength and possibilities”.

It is interesting that in the moment of defeat, Anne refers exactly to the deficiency of her own body. The economic problems were severe, adopting a social position as isäntä as well as constructing her own identity as a farmer were both difficult, but finally she was disheartened by her own body – young, beautiful and deficient. Anne’s story leads one to examine the meaning of the gendered body from the framework of the social construction of agricultural occupations. As a livelihood, agriculture, and especially family farming, is organised by relying on sexual, and especially heterosexual, norms such as, for example, marriage (Whatmore 1991). In the framework of body politics, power and conflicts are derived from the form of one’s body; its shape, strength and size (Bryant 1999a, b). Consequently, favouring men as successors on farms is not only restricting equality of opportunities in terms of access to economic and social resources connected to farms but is also as a way of practicing body politics (see also Niskanen 1998a). According to Bryant (1999a, b), body politics is the central way of using power in the field of agriculture. At the same time, that special way of using power is also shaping the context wherein young girls and women construct their self-identity as women and as farmers or farm wives. Bryant (1999b) has used three dimensions - spatial, verbal and physical - of body politics as analytical tools in her study of gender and sexuality in the construction of occupations in agriculture. The physical dimension of body politics and its relationship with life politics, freedom of choice and self-actualisation are of particular relevance here. The roles that are internalised by a woman inform us about the things she accepts and the things she does not accept. Identities emerge in reciprocal processes of recognising and approving cultural and social meanings. This implies that identities are always contextual, bound to time and space. The processes by which identities emerge are not necessarily neutral, but can include power relations. Therefore,

162

Silvasti

cultural and social identities contain information about the social relations between those who identify, and those who are identified (van der Burgh 1994). This presupposes that identities have to be understood and analysed as socially constructed perceptions in their own contexts. Sometimes identities tell more about the groups doing the identifying than about those who are identified. Anne’s story of suffering is a story of complex attempts at coexistence between the traditional cultural scripts and the modern individual, who is ‘free from fixities of tradition’ with respect to gendered division of labour. However, the social communities around Anne were not mature enough to change old peasant cultural models or to incorporate new dimensions into them. They lived according to the traditional scripts that, for example, do not take a female hog breeder seriously. This story really demonstrates much about the ones doing the identifying. It reveals some basic features concerning how they understand a woman’s position on the farm. It is a manifestation of traditionality, and of the rigidity of wider rural communities and agricultural institutions. Anne’s story indicates that, according to the traditional peasant script, a man dominates even when the head is a woman. The common model of the master as a man, makes the position of a woman farmer (or female isäntä) difficult. In that sense some rural communities obviously still find it ‘natural’ to rank male over female. Anne’s story also shows how institutionalised values and practices may ultimately close the space found by the individual for new interpretations of cultural scripts. At the same time, the possibilities for politics of life decisions or reflexive projection of shaping narrative self-identity are lost. Conclusions In the traditional agrarian context, the position of women was heavily subordinated. It is evident that many powerful features of the traditional peasant script are still influential in everyday rural life, especially on farms. The cultural model of favouring male successors strongly defines girls’ and women’s occupational possibilities on farms. The peasant way of life offers men more power, for example by favouring sons in succesions (Shortall 1999). This means that the equality of opportunities in terms of social and economic resources is not put into practice (Niskanen 1998a). Nevertheless, there have been remarkable improvements during the last few decades. Today, a family farm can be described as an ideological battlefield, where pressures from the wider society to exercise individual choice or life politics and claims for equality across gender and generation (de Haan 1994) confront the power hierarchy related to sex and position in the family. Furthermore, the pressures for individuality and equality confront familial obligations as well as the cultural scripts relating to the ideal of farm continuity and the gendered division of labour as embedded in the traditional peasant script. Farm family members are struggling to find a way to combine the best parts of the traditional peasant way of life with modern individualism. In the interpretation offered here, the traditional scripts which organise the peasant way of life are still alive but moving towards late modernity. Continuity of the family farm is still the most important and widely accepted goal for the farmers studied in this research. Emotional attachment to the land, and the preservation of inheritance and family tradition are central values. The continuity of the farm

Bending borders

163

is still a key source of honour within the family. Yet, there is no continuity nor honour without farm women. Young women leaving the countryside, the shortage of females in rural areas, the rejection of the subordinate position of daughter-inlaw, and the emergence of the female isäntä, are all signs that women will no longer resign themselves to patriarchal domination or accept the strongly hierarchical family system. By resisting subordination, women on farms have constructed new identities and new ways to live as farm women. Both cases analysed above indicate that in the reconstructed model, womanhood and being isäntä can be connected. Furthermore, the female isäntä is creating new practices and new images of farmerhood. Even though some rural communities, as well as important linkage partners, are still too rigid and/or too traditional to accept these new identities, the peasant script is nevertheless being written afresh with new content and practices. Sometimes, and for some individuals in particular, it is hard, but as Anne says: “Because I was more like an urban single person, I could not find congeniality of mind within my profession. Still, I think I broke one part of the wall of prejudices in order to make myself and another type of way of life accepted”.

The autobiographies of farmers show that the peasant way of life is not disappearing. Reconstruction is not the inevitable destruction of tradition. Instead, under the pressures of changing norms, values and moralities in the modernising society, the scripts organising tradition are being revised. This paper shows that even young farmers accept the cultural scripts of the peasant way of life and the gendered division of labour. What is new is that they do not take those interpretations as inevitable or given. They take the peasant scripts as a kind of framework within which they look for personal options and make personal choices. In other words, they are (re)constructing a peasant way of life. In the course of that process, the borders of the script of gendered division of labour are reconstructed. The process can be described as a meeting of two kinds of politics, life politics and body politics. Both are possible and relevant as analytical tools for examining the change both in the way of life and in the cultural scripts that organise it. In the scope of this research, life politics does not, at least yet, overcome body politics. It is not enough for a daughter to take over the farm even if she is supported by her own family. It is still possible that the life of a female successor is more strongly determinated by body than life politics. References Allardt, E. (1987) Sosiologia I (Juva: WSOY) Alston, M. (1995) Women on the Land. The Hidden Heart of Rural Australia (Kensington NSW: UNSW Press) Apo, S. (1993) Orjatytöstä oman kodin valtiaaksi. Näkemyksiä kahdeksasta maalaiselämän kuvauksesta. Pp.125-148 in U. Piela ed. Aikanaisia. Kirjoituksia naisten omaelämäkerroista (Helsinki: SKS) Brandth, B. (1999) Modernity, feminism and farm women unpublished paper delivered to Gender and Transformation in Rural Europe, Wageningen, 14-17 October 1999. Brandth, B. and M.S. Haugen (1997) Rural Women, Feminism and the Politics of Identity. Sociologia Ruralis 37 (3) pp. 325-344

164

Silvasti

Bryant, L. (1999a) The Detraditionalization of Occupational Identities in Farming in South Australia. Sociologia Ruralis 39 (2) pp. 236-261 Bryant, L. (1999b) Body Politics at Work: Exploring Gender and Sexuality in Constructions of Occupation(s) in Agriculture unpublished paper deliverd to Gender and Transformation in Rural Europe, Wageningen 14-17 October 1999 Burgh, M. van der (1994) From Categories to Dimensions of Identities. A Way to Unravel the Politics of Categorizing Illustrated in Respect to Farm Women’s Education in the Netherlands from 1865 onwards. Pp.121-138 in M. van der Burg and M. Endeveld eds. Women on family farms: Gender Research, EC Policies and New Perspectives (Wageningen: Circle for Rural European Studies/Dutch Network on Farm and Rural Women’s Studies) Delphy, C. (1984) Close to Home: A materialist analysis of women’s oppression. Translated ans edited by Diana Leonard (Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press) Denzin, N. K. (1989) Interpretive Biography. Qualitative Research Methods 7 (California: Sage publications) Fennell, R. (1981) Farm Succession in the European Community. Sociologia Ruralis 21 (1) pp. 19-42 Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity. Self and Society in the Late Modern Age (Cornwall: Polity Press) Geluk-Geluk, A (1994) The Position of Farm Women in the Netherlands. Pp. 13-20 in M. van der Burgh and M. Endeveld eds. Women on family farms: Gender Research, EC Policies and New Perspectives (Wageningen: Circle for Rural European Studies/Dutch Network on Farm and Rural Women’s Studies) Haan, H. de (1994) In the Shadow of the Tree: Kinship, Property and Inheritance among Farm Families (Amsterdam: Het Spinhuis) Haugen, M. S. (1994) Rural Women’s Status in Family and Property Law: Lessons from Norway. Pp. 87-101 in S. Whatmore, T. Marsden and P. Lowe eds. Gender and Rurality (London: David Fulton Publishers) Haugen, M. S. (1998) The Gendering of Farming: The Case of Norway. The European Journal of Women’s Studies. 5 (2) pp. 133-154 Heinonen, V. (1998) Talonpoikainen etiikka ja kulutuksen henki: kotitalousneuvonnasta kuluttajapolitiikkaan 1900-luvun Suomessa (Helsinki: Suomen historiallinen seura) Henley, N.M. (2001) Body Politics. Pp. 288-297 in A. Branaman ed. Self and Society (Oxford: Blackwell) Hutson, J. (1987) Fathers and Sons: Family Farms, Family Business and the Farming industry. Sociology 21 (2) pp. 215-229 Högbacka, R. (2000) Emäntiä, palkansaajia, työttömiä? Maaseudun naiset ja rakennemuutos. Pp. 15-32 in R. Högbacka and T. Trast eds., Monessa mukana. Näkymiä naisten työhön ja elämään maaseudulla. (Maaseutupolitiikan yhteistyöryhmän julkaisu: Sisäasiainministeriö) Jodahl, T. (1994) Farm Women in the Nordic Countries. Pp. 21-26 in M. van der Burgh and M. Endeveld eds., Women on family farms: Gender Research, EC Policies and New Perspectives (Wageningen: Circle for Rural European Studies/Dutch Network on Farm and Rural Women’s Studies) Jutikkala, E. (1958) Suomen talonpojan historia (Turku: SKS) Kvale, S. (1996) InterViewes. An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing (Thousand Oaks: Sage) Malmberg, R (1990) Tyttö syntyi -tyhjä syntyi? Pp. 100-104 in A. Nenola and S. Timonen eds. Louhen sanat. Kirjoituksia kansanperinteen naisista (Helsinki: SKS) Mishler, E. G. (1986) Research Interviewing. Context and Narrative (London: Harvard University Press) Money, J. (1993) Lovemaps. Clinical Concepts of Sexual/Erotic Health and Pathology, Paraphilia, and Gender Transposition in Childhood, Adolescence, and Maturity (New York, Prometheus Books)

Bending borders

165

Moring, B. (1993) Household and Family in Finnish Coastal Societies 1635-1895. Journal of Family History 18 (4) pp. 395-414 Murray, C.I. and G.K. Leigh (1995) Families and Sexuality. Pp 187-192 in R. D. Day, K.R. Gilbert, B.H. Settles and W.R. Burr eds., Research and Theory in Family Science (Pacific Grove: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company) Mäkelä, A. (1989) Suvusta perheeseen. Satakunnan ja Karjalan naisen asema 1500-luvulla. Suomen historiallinen seura. Historiallisia tutkimuksia 151 (Jyväskylä: Gummerus) Määttänen, K.(1993) Äidit ja tyttäret, anopit ja miniät. Pp. 149-164 in U. Piela ed. Aikanaisia. Kirjoituksia naisten omaelämäkerroista (Helsinki: SKS) Niskanen, K. (1998a) Genushistoria och agrarhistoria -ett paradigmskifte på spåret? Pp. 1-13 in K. Niskanen ed. Föreställningar om kön. Ett genusperspektiv på jordbrukets modernisering (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International) Niskanen, K. (1998b) Varför är kön betydelsefullt? Mäns och kvinnors arbete på mellankriegstidens familjejordbruk. Pp.44-87 in K. Niskanen ed. Föreställningar om kön. Ett genusperspektiv på jordbrukets modernisering (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell International) O’Hara, P. (1994) Constructing the Future: Cooperation and Resistance Among Farm Women in Ireland. Pp. 50-68 in S. Whatmore, T. Marsden and P. Lowe eds., Gender and Rurality. Critical Perspectives on Rural Change Series VI (London: David Fulton Publishers) Oldrup, H. (1999) Women working off the farm: Reconstructing Gender Identity in Danish Agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis 39 (3), pp. 344-358 Östman, A-C. (2000) Mjölk och jord. Om kvinlighet, manlighet och arbete i ett österbottniskt jordbrukssamhälle ca 1870-1940 (Åbo: Åbo Akademis förlag) Peltonen, M (1992) Talolliset ja torpparit. Vuosisadan vaihteen maatalouskysymys Suomessa. Suomen historiallinen seura. Historiallisia tutkimuksia 164 (Vammala: Vammalan kirjapaino Oy) Rogers, S. C. and S. Salamon (1983) Inheritance and Social Organization among Family Farmers. American Ethnologist 10 (3) pp. 529-549 Roos, J.P. (1983) On way of life typologies. University of Helsinki, Department of Social Policy. Reprint series B No 27 Rosenthal, G. (1993) Reconstruction of Life Stories. Principles of Selection in Generating Stories for Narrative Biographical Interviews. Pp. 59-91 in R. Josselson and A. Lieblich eds. The Narrative Study of Life. Vol. 1 (Newbury Park: Sage) Sachs, C. (1996) Gendered Fields. Rural Women, Agriculture, and Environment. Rural Studies Series (Colorado: Westview Press) Salamon, S. (1992) Prairie Patrimony. Family, Farming and Community in the Midwest (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press) Segalen, M. (1983) Love and Power in the Peasant Family. Rural France in the Nineteenth Century (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press) Segalen, M. (1987) Life-Course Patterns and Peasant Culture in France: A Critical Assessment. Journal of Family History 12 (1-3) pp. 213-224 Shortall, S. (1992) Power Analysis and Farm Wives. An Empirical Study of the Power Relationships Affecting Women on Irish Farms. Sociologia Ruralis 32 (4) pp. 431-451 Shortall, S. (1999) Women and Farming. Property and Power (Wiltshire: MacMillan Press) Siiskonen, P. (1990) Emännän ja isännän roolin muutos maatalouden uudenaikaistuessa. Tutkimus maatalon emännän ja isännän muuttuvista rooleista työnjaon avulla tarkasteltuna (Helsingin yliopisto: Maaseudun tutkimus ja koulutuskeskus, Mikkeli) Silvasti, T. (2001) Talonpojan elämä. Tutkimus elämäntapaa jäsentävistä kulttuurisista malleista (Helsinki: SKS) Simon, W. and J.H. Gagnon (1984) Sexual Scripts. Social Science and Modern Society 22 (1) 53-60

166

Silvasti

Sireni, M. (2000) Hyvät pientilan emännät. Pp 49-73 in R. Högbacka and T. Trast eds.,Monessa mukana. Näkymiä naisten työhön ja elämään maaseudulla (Maaseutupolitiikan yhteistyöryhmän julkaisu: Sisäasiainministeriö) Sireni, M. (2001) Martat ja Mariat. Pienten perheviljelmien naiset (Maaseutupolitiikan yhteistyöryhmän julkaisu: Sisäasiainministeriö) Symes, D.G. (1990) Bridging the Generations: Succession and Inheritance in a Changing World. Sociologia Ruralis 30 (3/4) pp. 280-291 Taylor, J., J.E. Norris and W.H. Howard (1998) Succession Patterns of Farmer Successor in Canadian Farm Families. Rural Sociology 63 (4) pp. 553-573 Thorsen, L. E. (1994) Reflections on the Biographical Method. Pp. 139-146 in M. van der Burgh and M. Endeveld eds., Women on family farms: Gender Research, EC Policies and New Perspectives. (Wageningen: Circle for Rural European Studies/Dutch Network on Farm and Rural Women’s Studies) Whatmore, S. (1991) Farming Women. Gender, Work and Family Enterprise (Basingstoke: Macmillan) Whatmore, S. (1994) Theoretical Achievements and Challenges in European Rural Gender Studies. Pp. 107-120 in M. van der Burg and M. Endeveld eds., Women on family farms. Gender Research, EC Policies and New Perspectives (Wageningen: Circle for Rural European Studies / Dutch Network on Farm and Rural Women’s Studies)

Tiina Silvasti University of Helsinki Department of Social Policy P.O. Box 18 Fin 00014 University of Helsinki Finland