A critique of approaches to 'domestic work': Women, work and the pre-industrial economy

Abstract

What is work? The failure to consider the complexities of this apparently simple question has caused a great deal of difficulty for the history of women's work and, it is argued here, for our understanding of the nature of the pre-industrial economy and economic development more generally. At the heart of this problem lie two overlapping definitions of work, only one of which would have been familiar to the pre-industrial world. This is the definition that sees work in opposition to leisure or idleness.1 However, this is not the definition commonly used now. Instead, in modern industrial societies work is what you do while 'at work' as either an employee or self-employed in order to earn an income. This is the work that counts as 'labour force participation' and contributes to 'the economy'. Yet most people have another type of work in their lives: unpaid domestic work, which includes housework and the work of caring for family members. We tend to ignore this type of work, or consider it non-work (as in discussions around the 'work-life balance'), despite the fact it is necessary and time-consuming, involves skill and physical exertion, and is essential for the functioning of the market economy. Unpaid housework and care work are also disproportionately undertaken by women.2.