Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Family farming and gendered division of labour on the move: a typology of farming-family configurations

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Family farming, understood as a household which combines family, farm and commercial activity, still represents the backbone of the world’s agriculture. On family farms, labour division has generally been based on complementarity between persons of different gender and generations, resulting in specific male and female spheres and tasks. In this ‘traditional’ labour division, gender inequality is inherent as women are the unpaid and invisible labour force. Although this ‘traditional’ labour division still prevails through time and space, new arrangements have emerged. This paper asks whether we are witnessing changes in the unequal structure of family farming and analyses the diversity of farming family configurations, using the Swiss context as a case study. The typology of farming-family configurations developed, based on qualitative data, indicates that inequalities are related to status on the farm and position in the configuration rather than to gender identity per se. This insight enables a discussion of equality and fairness in a new light. This paper shows that farming-family configurations are often pragmatic but objectively unequal. However, these arrangements might still be perceived as fair when mutual recognition exists, resulting in satisfaction among the family members. The paper concludes that although family farming presents challenges to gender equality, some types of farming-family configurations offer new pathways towards enhanced gender equality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See for example the dedicated webpage of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization: http://www.fao.org/family-farming-2014/en/, accessed 26 March 2015.

  2. The rise in divorces among farm couples has so far only be anecdotally reported but not yet objectively measured.

  3. Interview published on the Swiss website of the International Year of Family Farming, http://familyfarming.ch/de/internationales-jahr/hintergrund, accessed 24 March 2014.

  4. The global value of on-farm consumption in Switzerland dropped from CHF 250,633,000 in 1990 to CHF 75,624,000 in 2013 (Swiss Statistics 2013b).

  5. The limit to the use of a typology based on dyads, organisation of labour, and decision-making to describe all kind of farm households is in the case of a single person being present on the farm and in the farm household. In total, we interviewed three persons belonging to single-person households. Consequently, they are not included in the present analysis.

  6. Para-agriculture refers to agricultural-related activities which cannot be conceived as agricultural production in the common sense. Examples are direct selling, agri-tourism, gastronomy on the farm, or catering services. Para-agriculture is often a female activity.

  7. Like every individual’s name used in this paper, this is a pseudonym.

References

  • Barthez, A. 1982. Famille, travail et agriculture. Paris: Economica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bartley, S.J., P.W. Blanton, and J.L. Gilliard. 2005. Husbands and wives in dual-earner marriages: Decision-making, gender role attitudes, division of household labor, and equity. Marriage and Family Review 37: 69–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, J. 2000. The joys and justice of housework. Sociology 34: 609–631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beerli, K., and E. Steingruber. 2015. Darum prüfe, wer sich ewig bindet. UFA-Revue 2(2015): 78–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berlan Darqué, M. 1988. The division of labour and decision-making in farming couples: Power and negotiation. Sociologia Ruralis 28: 271–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjorkhaug, H., and A. Blekesaune. 2007. Masculinisation or professionalisation of norwegian farm work: A gender neutral division of work on norwegian family farms? Journal of Comparative Family Studies 38: 423–434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bohler, K.F., A. Sterbling, and G. Vonderach. 2014. Der bäuerliche Familienbetrieb. Aachen: Shaker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bokemeier, J., and L. Garkovich. 1987. Assessing the influence of farm women’s self-identity on task allocation and decision making. Rural Sociology 52: 13–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandth, B. 2002. Gender identity in European family farming: A literature review. Sociologia Ruralis 42: 181–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bühler, E. 2001. Frauen-und Gleichstellungsatlas Schweiz. Zurich: Seismo.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carriero, R. 2011. Perceived fairness and the division of domestic labour: A longitudinal view. Paper presented at Espanet Conference “Innovare il welfare. Percorsi di trasformazione in Italia e in Europa.” Milano 29.09-01.10.2011.

  • Chayanov, A. 1986 [1925]. The theory of peasant economy. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

  • Contzen, S. 2004. Frauen in der Männerdomäne Landwirtschaft. Aufgezeigt am Beispiel von zehn landwirtschaftlichen Betriebsleiterinnen in der Schweiz. Agrarwirtschaft und Agrarsoziologie 2004: 117–144.

    Google Scholar 

  • Contzen, S. 2008. Wenn das Einkommen nicht mehr reicht. Agrarforschung 15: 524–529.

    Google Scholar 

  • Contzen, S. 2013. ‘Je mehr ich arbeiten gehen kann, desto besser ist es.’ Bewältigungsstrategien von Schweizer Bäuerinnen in Haushalten mit finanziellen Schwierigkeiten. In Frauen in der Landwirtschaft. Debatten aus Wissenschaft und Praxis, ed. E. Bäschlin, S. Contzen, and R. Helfenberger. Wettingen: eF-eF Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Contzen, S. 2015. «Wir sind nicht arm» ! Diskursive Konstruktionen von Armut von Schweizer Bauernfamilien. Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture 8: 60–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Déchaux, J.-H. 1995. Sur le concept de configuration: Quelques failles dans la sociologie de Norbert Elias. Cahiers Internationaux de Sociologie 99: 293–313.

    Google Scholar 

  • Delphy, C. 1983. Agriculture et travail domestique: la réponse de la bergère à Engels. Nouvelles Questions Féministes 5: 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Droz, Y., and V. Miéville-Ott. 2001. On achève bien les paysans. Reconstruire une identité paysanne dans un monde incertain. Chêne-Bourg/Genève: Georg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Droz, Y., V. Miéville-Ott, and F. Reysoo. 2014. L’agriculteur et la paysanne suisses: Un couple inégal ? Swiss Journal of Sociology 40: 237–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elias, N. 1978. What is sociology?. London/New York: Hutchinson/Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folbre, N. 2001. The Invisible heart. Economics and family values. New York: The New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Folbre, N., and R.E. Goodin. 2004. Revealing altruism. Review of Social Economy 62: 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Folbre, N., and J.A. Nelson. 2000. For love or money: Or both? The Journal of Economic Perspectives 14: 123–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forney, J. 2011. Idéologie agrarienne et identité professionnelle des agriculteurs: la complexité des images du « paysan suisse». Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture 2011: 13–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forney, J. 2012. Eleveurs laitiers. Peuvent-ils survivre?. Lausanne: Presse Polytechniques et Universitaires Romandes.

    Google Scholar 

  • Francis, D.G. 1994. Family agriculture tradition and transformation. London: Earthscan Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giraud, C. 2004. Division du travail d’accueil et gratifications dans les chambres d’hôtes à la ferme. Cahiers du Genre 2: 71–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenstein, T.N. 1996. Gender ideology and perceptions of the fairness of the division of household labor: Effects on marital quality. Social Forces 74: 1029–1042. doi:10.1093/sf/74.3.1029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haugen, M.S., and A. Blekesaune. 2005. Farm and off-farm work and life satisfaction among Norwegian farm women. Sociologia Ruralis 45: 71–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heggem, R. 2014. Diversification and re-feminisation of Norwegian farm properties. Sociologia Ruralis 54: 439–459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelle, U., and S. Kluge. 2010. Vom Einzelfall zum Typus. Fallvergleich und Fallkontrastierung in der qualitativen Sozialforschung. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Koller, J. 1965. Probleme der arbeitsteiligen Landwirtschaft unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des bäuerlichen Familienbetriebes. Dissertation. Zürich: Juris Verlag.

  • Little, J. 2006. Gender and sexuality in rural communities. In Handbook of Rural Studies, ed. P. Cloke, T. Marsden, and P. Mooney, 365–378. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, L. 2012. The emergence of rural support organisations in the UK and Canada: Providing support for patrilineal family farming. Sociologia Ruralis 52: 353–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Purseigle, F., and B. Hervieu. 2009. Pour une sociologie des mondes agricoles dans la globalisation. Etudes Rurales 183: 177–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhardt, N., and P. Barlett. 1989. The persistence of family farming in United States agriculture. Sociologia Ruralis 29: 203–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenfeld, R.A. 1986. US farm women. Their part in farm work and decision making. Work and Occupations 13: 179–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rossier, R. 2005. Role models and farm development options: A comparison of seven Swiss farm families. Journal of Comparative Family Studies 36: 399–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossier, R. 2009. Zukunftsperspektiven junger landwirtschaftlicher Betriebsleiterinnen in der Schweiz. In Gender issues. Sonderheft des Jahrbuches der österreichischen Gesellschaft für Agrarökonomie Band 18, Heft 2, ed. T. Oedl-Wieser, and I. Darnhofer, 55–66. Wien: Facultas.wuv.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossier, R., and L. Reissig. 2014. Beitrag der Bäuerinnen für die landwirtschaftlichen Familienbetriebe in der Schweiz. Ettenhausen: Agroscope.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sachs, C., P. Allen, A.R. Terman, J. Hayden, and C. Hatcher. 2014. Front and back of the house: Socio-spatial inequalities in food work. Agriculture and Human Values 31: 3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schatzmann, L., and A.L. Strauss. 1973. Field research. Strategies for a natural sociology. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Silvasti, T. 2003. Bending borders of gendered labour division on farms: The case of Finland. Sociologia Ruralis 43: 154–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • SwissStatistics. 2009. Veränderungen beim Zeitaufwand für Haus-und Familienarbeit: 1997–2007. Zeitvergleiche zu den Resultaten aus dem Modul «Unbezahlte Arbeit» 1997, 2000, 2004 und 2007 der Schweizerischen Arbeitskräfteerhebung (SAKE). Neuchâtel: BFS.

    Google Scholar 

  • SwissStatistics. 2013a. Das Engagement der Väter in Haushalt und Familie. Modul zur unbezahlten Arbeit 2010 der Schweizerischen Arbeitskräfteerhebung. Neuchâtel: BFS.

    Google Scholar 

  • SwissStatistics. 2013b. Les comptes économiques de l’agriculture. Bern: BFS.

    Google Scholar 

  • SwissStatistics. 2014. Landwirtschaftliche Betriebszählung 2013: Zusatzerhebung. Die Familie nach wie vor Eckpfeiler der Schweizer Landwirtschaft. Medienmitteilung. Neuchâtel: BFS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, S., F. Bennett, and S. Sung. 2010. Unequal but ‘fair’? Housework and child care in a sample of low- to moderate-income British couples. Oxford: Department of Social Policy and Social Work, University of Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Ploeg, J.D. 2008. The new peasantries. Struggles for autonomy and sustainability in an era of empire and globalisation. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whatmore, S. 1991. Life cycle or patriarchy? Gender divisions in family farming. Journal of Rural Studies 7: 71–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Widmer, E.D. 2010. Family configurations. A structural approach to family diversity. Farnham/Burlington: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Widmer, E.D. 2014. Partnerships, Family, and Personal Configurations. In The Wiley Blackwell companion to the sociology of families, ed. J. Treas, J.E. Scott, and M. Richards, 236–254. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We want to thank Yvan Droz, Valérie Miéville-Ott, Fenneke Reysoo and Ruth Rossier for the inspiring discussions and collective reflections within the ‘Agrigenre’ research project. We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Swiss National Science Foundation and the National Research Program 60 “Gender Equality.” Many thanks also to the anonymous reviewers and the editor of this journal for their immensely helpful comments and suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sandra Contzen.

Additional information

Authors listed alphabetically, with equal participation and responsibility related to the paper content.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Contzen, S., Forney, J. Family farming and gendered division of labour on the move: a typology of farming-family configurations. Agric Hum Values 34, 27–40 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-016-9687-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-016-9687-2

Keywords

Navigation