Whatmore et. a1 1994). As farming has declined ..... distributed free to all the local and county branches and to all elected commit- tee members. ... The magazine published critical views on nursery schools, both in the edito- rial and also from ...
Rural Women, Feminism and the Politics of Identity Berit Brandth and Marit S. Haugen*
VER THE LAST two decades or so there has been considerable research on
0
rural women in western industrialized countries, documenting their contribution to the farm economy as well as the change and diversity of their work and life situations (Brandth and Verstad 1993; Burgh and Endeveld 1994; Whatmore et. a1 1994). As farming has declined in importance as an occupation for women, rural women today engage in many other kinds of income generating work. Farm women have various and different relations to farming, and they combine work on and off the farm in different ways (Efstratoglou and Mavridou 1996). Studies of rural women’s organizations reflect these changes and have pointed to a shift taking place in the gender dimensions of rurality during the last twenty years (Shortall 1994; Teather 1994, 1995). Reports are made of a growing assertiveness of farm women, and of rural women’s organizations turning into significant social agents in community development and agriculture (op. cit.). As organizations play a major role in constituting the identity of women (and men), this might indicate a shift in the rural definition of gender. In this paper we focus on Norges Bondekvinnelag, the Norwegian Society of Rural Women (NSRW). NSRW is the only organization in Norway representing rural womedfarm women.’ The organization was founded fifty years ago, and lately there have been hints of criticism and debate about its agenda. Questions like whom it represents, what it does and what kind of politics it advocates, have been raised among its members. Against this background we are interested in which definitions of rural women the NSRW mediates and to what extent its political agenda contains feminist issues like equal rights and opportunities for women. Some years ago we would not have asked these questions as the conservative traditions of such *Centre for Rural Research, Norwegian University for Science and Technology, Trondhelm, Norway. Published by Blackwell Publishers, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 lJF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
0 1997 European Society for Rural Sociology.
Sociofogia Rurufir Volume 37, No. 3, 1997 ISSN 0038-0199
326
Brandth and Haugen
an organization would have seemed unpromising territory for the germination of any kind of feminist agenda. But, as society changes, we would think it hard for any women’s organization to ignore the impact of feminist ideas on women’s expectations and sense of self. In order to shed light on these matters we look at three volumes of the magazine published for the members of the NSRW. Previous research has reported that the agricultural press has neglected women in accounts of farming and thus contributed to an ideological construction of farm women as spouses, housewives and farmhands (Walter and Wilson 1996; Liepins 1996). For this reason we were curious to examine a magazine put out by women themselves, to see how they construct rural and farm women. The magazine’s engagement in questions of women’s politics and social change allows us to understand its gender ideology and the members’ common identity as rural women. Our goal is not primarily to present clear results and easy answers. We are more concerned with bringing forth contradictions and changes in the way the magazine relates to feminist issues in order to see how identity and women’s politics are constructed in a rural context.
Feminism and identity Women’s liberation and equal rights are not terms we have normally associated with the Norwegian Society of Rural Women. During the 1970s, the second wave feminist movement had its origin in the city and was to a great extent an urban phenomenon. It never gained any strong foothold in rural areas (Poiner 1996). There may be many reasons why the women’s movement held little appeal for rural women, even though it’s issues were both relevant and important to them. One such reason may be the general view that the movement was critical of the traditional nuclear family and hostile towards men. At the same time it was perceived as critical toward many of those values that have traditionally been held in high regard in rural communities. According to Poiner (1996), the desire for harmonious social relationships is strong in many rural societies, and therefore potential gender conflicts are suppressed. The women’s movement has been perceived as a threat rather than a liberating factor. The term ‘feminism’ is a contested concept. Its historical roots date back to the Enlightenment; today it runs in several different directions and is understood in many ways (Wilson 1986). It contains theoretical variation, disagreements and contrasts. For these reasons, we find it difficult to give a precise definition of the term feminism without the risk of excluding many of the ideas that have been characterized as feminist. Despite its heterogeneous character, feminism does circle around some basic questions concerning equality, difference and power between men and women, connected to visions about independence and liberation for women (Halsaa 1996). The variations of feminism are often characterized by distinguishing between
Rural women, feminism and the politics of &entity
327
different strands of thought.’ One strand is the equal rights perspective. It is based on a humanistic demand for justice and emphasizes that women and men are, in principle, same and equal. The differences that exist between women and men are generally perceived as a result of discrimination, which must be overcome or eliminated. According to this perspective, feminist policies aim at achieving the same rights and opportunities for women that men already have. A second strand may be called the womeniperspective and its accompanying politics ‘difference feminism.’ Here women and men are regarded as being different in principle. Emphasis is on women’s seeing and being in the world. Women have different values, virtues and ways of thinking which makes them act differently. Instead of trying to make women equal to men and men’s standards, this strand of feminism aims at making visible that which is specifically feminine, and works towards women’s activities being recognized and valued. A third strand, a (post-modern) gender perspective, regards women and men as both same and different at the same time. In addition, it considers women to be different from each other, and it focuses on the diversity and variety of women’s lives. Women are not regarded as a single category of people that have common social characteristics. The gender perspective has had a great influence on feminist research. Feminist researchers have become aware of the diversity within the category ‘women’ and there is an increased acknowledgement that the identities and experiences of women are expressed in many different ways. While both the equal rights and the women’s perspectives can be relatively easily associated with the women’s movement’s strategies of change, the postmodern perspective is more detached from this movement, and poses great challenges to gender politics of plurality. That feminist thought and practice have been (and are) undergoing change, and that there is acceptance today of many different expressions of feminism, is also the background for our interest in how the rural context influences feminist practice, in spite of the fact that feminism has traditionally been alien to farm women. The first question we ask in this article is which elements of feminism can be found in NSRW’s magazine during the last twenty years. The way gender and gender relations are understood (feminist thinking) will have importance for their practice (policy making). Do the women of the NSRW present themselves as the same and equal to men, and do they recommend that inequalities be eliminated by achieving the same rights and doing the same tasks as men? O r do they emphasize themselves as being different from men, and rather than fighting for equal rights and opportunities, work to obtain recognition and valuation of women’s work? The way an organization relates to feminist issues tells something about how it understands its members as women. Generally speaking, politics of organizations are designed according to how they understand themselves and the members they want to attract and recruit. The same processes are at work with individual women. Those who choose to join an organization might do so
328
Brandth and Haugen
because they perceive themselves as sharing the characteristics of that group. By joining they can affirm parts of their identity and contest other parts. This link between collective and individual identity formation is what is meant by the politics of identity (Calhoun 1994). The interrelated problems of self-recognition and recognition by others are central aspects of the identity formation processes. Our second question, then, is how the members of the organization define themselves as women. How are the identities of rural women constituted and communicated among the members? In what ways are differences within the group expressed and dealt with? Before we start the analysis of these questions, we will give a brief account of the organizational context.
Background information about the Norwegian Society of Rural Women The Norwegian Society of Rural Women was formally established as a separate organization in 1946. It had existed as a women’s group within the Farmer’s Union since 1925. It soon became widespread all over the country and had as many local branches at community levels as the Farmers’ Union (Gjerdaker 1995). The gendered separation of functions where women concentrated on social and cultural issues and the well-being of people in rural areas, and men took care of farm politics and economic issues, continued after the re-organization into two independent associations. Thus, the NSRW had a different start from most feminist organizations. Its objective was to organize women to work for rural welfare. The Farmers’ Union was the main political arena and trade union for farmers. Women could of course be members of both organizations, but there were in fact very few female members of the Farmer’s Union. The NSRW encourages rural women to work in favour of the social, economic and cultural interests of people in rural areas. Even though its objective is to organize rural women and its name indicates that it is for rural women in general, historically it was established by farm women and the majority of members are still farm women. The official Norwegian title of the organization Norges Bondekvinnelug employs the term ‘farm woman’ (bondekvinne),while today many local branches have changed their name to ‘rural women’s association’ (bygdekvinnelug). In short this reflects an ambiguity within the organization, rooted within agriculture, but aiming to embrace all rural women. As this article will show, most of its issues dealing with women’s rights, focus on farm women and work. In 1994 the organization had about 20,000 members; 10,000 fewer than in 1974. The most serious decline took place the last decade. It had problems recruiting new, young members, and may face even more decline as members age. As many as 46 per cent of the members are above sixty years, and only 11 per cent are under 40. Compared with the age of the total population of Norwegian farmers, 27 per cent are under forty years and 22 per cent are above sixty (Agricultural Statistics 1993). Therefore the organization has started a
Rural women, feminism and the politics of ldentity
t
t
1
1 Central Office Secretariat and General Magazine NBK-nytt
329
Regional level 18 County branches _ . . . _ _ . . . _ _ . Own Boards Elected representatives from local communities I
691 local community
branches Figure 1: The structure of the Norwegian Sociery ofRural Women campaign in order to bring more young women into the active membership. It seems, however, that young women working within agriculture prefer to become members of the Farmers’ Union (of which 29 per cent of the members under forty are women) rather than the Norwegian Society of Rural Women. The reason for this might be that the Farmer’s Union is more concerned with issues and policies concerning farming as an occupation and as a business (Haugen 1990). The ageing membership might also indicate that the organization represents an image of rural women with which young rural women cannot identify. As Teather (1996) has pointed out, difficult periods of recruitment for many old rural women’s organizations, are due to recent changes in farm/rural women’s self-concepts. The Norwegian Society of Rural Women is recognized as the voice of farm (rural) women and has a consultative role in many official bodies. Many of the issues with which it has been engaged have been heard by the government: some of the early issues were children’s allowance for all families with children, holidays for farm women, and home economics education in rural areas (Dragsund 1995). From the start the NSRW emphasized courses and study circles for the members to be trained in organizational and community work, and economics (op. cit). The organization belongs to the Associated Country Women of the World (ACWW), an association with 9 million members in seventy countries. In other words, it plays a certain role beyond the local, since local involvement is combined with national and international involvement. The Norwegian Society of Rural Women is hierarchically organized (Figure 1). The Annual Meeting is the ruling body. The Board is elected by regional
330
Brandth and Haugen
delegates participating at the Annual Meeting and consists of the elected president, six executives each representing a region of three counties, one executive representing the Farmer’s Union and one representing the Rural Youth Organization. There are eighteen county-level branches and each have their own board elected by delegates from the local community branches. There are a total of 691 local community branches.
Method The NSRW produces its own magazine which is distributed to the members eight times a year. The first issue was printed in 1953, but it only came out occasionally during the early years. The material upon which we base this analysis consists of all issues of the magazine (NBK-nytt) from three selected years 1974, 1984 and 19943 - a period of tremendous changes in women’s positions, and of turbulent gender relations in society as a whole. The agricultural media has been conceptualized as sites and processes in the construction of meaning (Liepins 1996, p. 5). Employing this understanding of media texts, we consider the magazine as an important site where the meaning of rural gender is constructed. It is a source of information exchange between members, and it functions to integrate women who live far apart from each other, shaping shared values and identity both through their common history and contemporary practice. In matters significant to rural women it thus permits an on-going identification with the organization. We see the magazine as an important mediation of how members portray themselves to each other and, as such, interesting material to study. Analyzing the magazine as discourse, it is important to mention that it is not merely a vehicle of meaning, but that it is also itself active in the Construction of meaning, and thus participating in the social shaping of rural women’s identity. The social and historical context in which this shaping occurs, needs to be taken into consideration - in this case especially the equal rights agenda at the time. We thus paid special attention to issues where women’s questions and politics were on the agenda (see Tables 1 and 2), and to how tensions and potential gender conflicts were dealt with. The choice of topics and how articles treat women’s issues, point to definitions and redefinitions of rural women and their ideological position. The ideological dimensions are also communicated in proposing particular ways of seeing and interpreting things while excluding others. To begin, we read all the issues, wrote summaries of the contents and recorded the pictures in each issue. Having studied the structure of the magazine, we examined which topics it addressed and the manner in which the members’ activities were presented. We expect that being two researchers discussing each others’ understandings of the material in order to reach a common interpretation, may have improved validity.
Sick pay scheme for spouses working in a family business
Higher status for farm women as professionals
Improving the proper valuation of domestic work
Increasing the prop er valuation of domestic work
Limited supply of public child care facilities (2 per cent of children) Diversdying income: need for offfarm work in rural areas
Occupational rights of farm women
Women’s role as conservers of the cultural heritage of country living
Themes
Social context
Welfare state grows in rural areas
New law on family distribution of farm income
The ’quiet revolution’: increase in educational level and labour market participation for women
More off-farm jobs taken by rural women
1984
Women’s movement
Low, but increasing rate of employment amongst married women
Against extension of child care facilities
Improved living conditions for families with children
Social context
Themes
1974
Table 1: Key issues in a broader social context in each volume
Paid care work
The politics of antiEU membership
Women’s role as consumers and producers in marketing Norwegian rural goods
The problem of NSRW’s ageing membership
NSRW marketing and recruitment campalgns
Themes
Social context
Welfare state comes under threat
Olympic Winter Games at Lillehammer, Norway
E U referendum in Norway
Fewer women staying on the farm. Diversification of rural life styles
1994
CL
w w
332
Brandth and Haugen
One characteristic of the magazine is that there are many voices present, not just the organization’s official view. The resolutions of the Annual Meeting with delegates from all levels were the only source of official views from the organization. The many voices make it an interesting object of study, but more problematic because it is not always possible to understand whose voice can be heard. Controversial speeches were, in many cases, published without any or few comments. The editorials written by the President may not be shared opinions, but as elected President she represents the voice of the organization. Published letters from local branches presented views which might be different from the views of other local branches. In the 1994 volume, not just ordinary members but also journalists were behind many of the articles. Seldom did we find any continuing discussion about any issue. Table 2: Elements of discourse in each volume
1974
1984
1994
Long informative pieces on nutrition and population growth, family, folklore, etc.
Shorter informative pieces on work for equality, sexrole patterns, gendered division of work, research on rural matters
Short informative pieces on menopause, health, etc. More feature articles
Short reports on local group activities and events
Reports on local activities, letters to the magazine from individual members
A lot of short local reports with pictures
Few pictures. Stylized drawings, craftwork
Some pictures. Photos and drawings
A lot of pictures. Mostly photos, some in colour
Advertisements for farm products
Advertisements for books
Advertisements for private pensions
Religious page in every issue written by men
Religious page in every issue written by men and women
Religious page in some issues written by women
Buzz words: Women’s responsibilities
Buzz words: Equal worth
Buzz words: Fitness and health
It is important to emphasize that it is not the organization itself, its activities and politics which we examine in this paper, but a textual mediation of it, a discourse carried out within the organization and expressed by the magazine. The magazine is not able to report all activities of the organization, and thus it will not give a full picture of its politics. Although what is presented may sometimes be accidental, we do assume that editorial decisions are made as to
Rural women, feminism and the politics of dentity
333
what material to print. This process of selection adds (interpretative) value to the magazine as data on the construction and presentation of rural women’s identities. Because we restrict our analysis to one year in each decade, we may have lost part of the context in which the contributions were written. To aid interpretation, we have supplemented our knowledge of the organization with two recently published commemorative books: one about the Norwegian Society of Rural Women (50 years), and the other of the Farmer’s Union (100 years) (Dragsund 1995; Gjerdaker 1995).
Three decades of NBK--ny# All the magazines contain an editorial, usually written by the President, information from the central office, and a religious page (in 1974 and 1984 in every issue, in 1994 more sporadically). The magazines give information about the activities in the county and local community branches. From these reports we see what kinds of activities dominate at the community level; courses in arts and crafts, fund-raising campaigns, study circles, social evenings with entertainment, excursions, activities for old people in the community, collecting information about folklore and local traditions. The cultural heritage of country living is deemed important, be it handicraft, food, old buildings and artifacts, literature or children’s songs. Most churches in the countryside in Norway have received gifts from local branches. The local reports are very similar in form and content, creating a model of appropriate activities, reinforcing an image of rural women as keepers of tradition and cultural values. In addition to all these local, charitable and cultural activities, the NSRW responds to a range of Parliamentary reports and bills. The magazine refers to actual matters, and asks the members to give their reactions before a public statement is given. The kinds of issues taken up and discussed by the NSRW will be dealt with for each volume. The overall picture of the magazine through the three decades is that it reflects tradition, Lutheran Christianity, and family orientation. Although local contexts are central, global dimensions are also present, for example in the coverage of aid to developing countries, international co-operation with both Nordic and international associations, and discussions about global issues like population growth and the provision of food. The magazine presents a picture of rural women as caretakers, valuing tradition and family. It does not challenge traditional gender roles and ideologies, never featuring women who break with tradition and norms, or in some ways are social innovators. What is not presented in the magazines is also of interest. Everyday life is not described, and men and relations to men are hardly ever discussed. And even though the readers are women, no columns with recipes, home decorations, or practical child-rearing questions are to be found. Nor does the content
334
Brandth and Haugen
of the magazine deal with farmwork or technical questions within agriculture. The volumes are more oriented towards the public sphere, than towards the private and occupational spheres, and are in this sense actually different both from most women’s magazines and the agricultural press. In this way the magazine helps to build up a public (and political) rural women’s image, more than reinforcing a stereotypical picture of women as concerned with cooking, home decorating, child rearing - the private part of life.
1974: Taking care of fundamental values: family politics in focus In 1974, eight numbers of the Norwegian Farm Women’s Magazine were distributed free to all the local and county branches and to all elected committee members. In that year there was a discussion about whether all ordinary members should receive the magazine. Widespread distribution would make the magazine a better link between the organization and the members, hopefully promoting more interaction and sense of community amongst them. The magazines had a sober layout, with few illustrations and pictures. The cover page always carried the same illustration, depicting a young woman in four traditional female roles: with a baby, baking, with a spinning wheel, and working in the field. In addition, there was a different cover picture for every number, commonly of nature and/or children. The few pictures in the magazine mostly showed either local leaders, board members or women who had done something to warrant special mention. Two of the main topics discussed in the magazine in 1974 were expansion of public child care facilities and ‘Living conditions amongst families with children’ (Stortingsmelding 1973/74). Many reasons were put forward for expansion of child care facilities in the Norwegian public debate: children would benefit from a supplementary social environment, parents (i.e., mothers) would be able to take a job, and the economy needed a larger labour supply. Norwegian society changed in many respects during the 1970s. The oil economy permitted the expansion of the welfare state but, at the same time and partly as a consequence, there was an increasing demand for labour in many sectors, primarily in public services. Housewives became a target group as a potential labour force, and married women with pre-school children started to enter the labour market. The magazine published critical views on nursery schools, both in the editorial and also from members who expressed their opinion in letters to the magazine. NSRW presented an official statement to the Ministry of Children and Family Affairs which underlined parental responsibility for pre-school children. However, they recognized the need for auxiliary initiatives in certain cases (disabled children, children with serious social problems, children from deprived milieus). They strongly argued that the interest of children should be the principal issue, not society’s increased need for labour supply, and not women’s wish to work.
Rural women, feminism and the politics of dentity
335
The NSRW was critical of the current government policy, which was interpreted as pushing both parents into the labour market. It was seen as a menace to marriage (increasing rate of divorce), family life and children’s upbringing. Their alternative was a higher estimation of the domestic work and care activities undertaken in homes, as is expressed in the following quote: The workplace in the home should be of the same standing as another workplace, so that work experience, pensions and social insurance should be justified also for this occupation. Tax and family policy should not lead to little children’s mothers being forced to take jobs outside the home. (1974, 8/9, p. 9)
The magazine communicates ambivalence regarding women’s work. Not only is a higher estimation of (women’s) domestic work requested, also higher status for women working on farms was considered important: We have to work for a higher status as farm women. I am optimistic that the understanding of the importance of our work will increase. It is food we deal with. (Editorial 1974, 8/9, p. 3)
These quotes illustrate that work on farms is somehow differentiated from work on ‘the labour market.’ While the NSRW resisted change in women’s role as primary caretakers and was sceptical of women’s entry into the labour market, it never saw a conflict between women’s work on the farm and their family role. O n the contrary, they take to arguing that women on farms should demand more recognition as farmers, and call themselves ‘farmers.’ It would empower them and give them a stronger sense of farm and work identity. There was a rising consciousness that: The farm woman has become more of a professional within agriculture and it is important that women inform themselves on agriculturalmatters, economy, etc. The co-operation between husband and wife should not be only in manual work. Women should be trained to be more trade conscious. (1974, 3, p. 10)
In addition to urging farm women to improve their qualifications in farming, the quote suggests that women expand their sphere of activity to include tasks that men usually have done by themselves. We notice, however, that there are no demands for men to expand their activity in the direction of the home in order to share house and carework with women. One result of the growing awareness that occupational identity is important, was the struggle for improving the sick pay scheme for farm women. A fiscal reform in 1969 allowed for division of incomes between married couples who worked in family businesses. The implementation of this reform varied in practice between different local taxation authorities, and the majority of farm women had none or very little income from their work on the farm. As most pensions and social insurance rights depend on taxable income, farm women were the losers. The NSRW asked the National Insurance Administration to
336
Brandth and Haugen
clarify the directive for calculation of sick pay for spouses working in a family business. This issue is reported in the magazine. However, the obviously discriminatory practice that women were nearly always regarded as spouses was not questioned. Neither was the fact that spouses could not have more than a fairly low maximum of the total farm income registered to them, unless they provided documentary evidence of every hour worked on the farm. The Norwegian Society of Rural Women together with The Rural Youth Organization and the Farmer’s Union made a common statement of positive support to the proposed Gender Equality Act, which was passed in 1978. Since the NSRW thus supported liberal equality politics, their silence about the amendment to the act regulating succession to farms, which was passed some years earlier (1974), was remarkable. This act gave women equal rights to succeed their parents. The right of succession was now determined purely on the basis of age, and not according to sex and age as was previously the case. The proposition created much debate both within the agricultural population and in the press. A vote among the NSRW members showed that farm women were split in their views with 57 per cent against the amendment (Dragsund 1995). Thus, the official statement from the organization on the amendment was negative. To the NSRW the amendment was not only a question of gender. More importantly, it represented a break with basic farm values. Silence about the amendment in the 1974 volume may have been due to a felt need to restore harmony and status quo within the organization by avoiding this conflict-ridden issue. This may indicate that harmony not only plays an important role in farm women’s everyday lives and sphere of activities, but also has an impact on their organization. Summing up: the main articles were about women’s important family role in addition to their social and cultural involvement in society. Many women’s issues were opposed, probably because they were regarded as a threat to their common basic conservative values and need for harmony. The magazine presented ideas about equal opportunities, but continued to accept that women and men have different positions, functions and characteristics. There were also other contradictions in the way the magazine dealt with gender issues. Even though opposition to women’s increased labour market participation was voiced, it was considered important that farm women be credited for their work, and given the same rights to sick pay and pensions as other working women. Another contradiction was the support of the proposed Gender Equality Act, at almost the same time that the organization voted against equal rights in agriculture regarding succession to farms. 1984: ‘Putting one’s foot in it’ A change from the 1970s is that the magazine was distributed to all members of the organization by 1984. One consequence of this was the increase in local reports printed in each issue. Much space was also devoted to reporting re-
Rural women.,feminism and the politics of tdentity
337
search findings, women’s conferences and meetings where the organization had been represented, and giving statements from the organization to the authorities on various issues. Most of these articles addressed women’s situation in general, not only in agriculture. They may thus be seen as general information about gendered society to the members of the organization: for instance, one article was about women’s working hours. Since women were in the process of finding work outside the home in relatively large numbers, there was a public debate at that time about the desirable length and flexibility of the working day with part-time work for women and a six-hour working day being considered. This transition to labour market participation included farm women in the 1980s, so that it became a situation with which the organization had to deal.
Figure 2: “Wedon’t work for peanuts anymore!’’ (Drawing: Kire Wedul - No. 2, 1984)
The most important informative material for farm women was probably several articles presenting new laws for sharing income and taxation between spouses working in their own businesses. It was considered important that farm women be informed and know the rules in case the local taxation offices did not. A fairer sharing of the family farm income had been one of the important issues for farm women for which NSRW had fought for several years. The passing of a new law was thus considered to be a victory, and an important recognition of the rights of farm women and of their work on the farm.
338
Brandth and Haugen
Beside occupational rights of women as workers on farms, recognition of rural women’s household and care work was still an important issue and one to which the magazine devoted much space. Claiming equal worth with other types of work women do, the organization urged the government to push for wages for care work. Women working at home must also be valued by society, it was held. Interestingly little or no comparison with men and men’s work was made in the texts, nor was there any suggestion that women’s work was in many ways less valued than men’s work. There was no questioning of the patriarchal structure of family farming. However, in the second issue that year there was a drawing which not merely reflected the written text, but contributed to the argument in its own right. It very clearly showed women’s demand for wages as a gendered issue and one in which the husband was their adversary. Even though two of the most important issues presented in the mid-1980s were the recognition of family work and the rights of farm women, the need for work outsde the farm for women was emerging as an issue. The emergence of this issue may be connected to the fact that the organization could no longer be content to recruit only from farm women. It needed to renew itself as an organization and, in order to do so, had to become an organization for all rural women. There was a particular need for young women as members. Growing awareness of the consequences of increasing migration by young women was by this time seen in the magazine. It was argued that if there are no women, there will be no social activities in rural areas. Much is lost if young women move out in order to find work, and/or lose the inspiration to engage in community work. Several articles stressed that women and women’s community work are of great positive value for the social and cultural life of local communities: “One thing is certain, at least, and that is: rural Norway would become dull and dreary were it not for the Society of Rural Women” (1984, 3, p. 9). The NSRW emphasized that it intended to work for ‘viable rural communities’ and be a place where rural women meet. The social part of being a network for rural women in local communities was thus underlined. The political part - that of influencing the development of society - was considered equally important. The leaders of the organization urged women to take responsibility and become involved for the benefit of rural communities. ‘To put one’s foot in it’ was an expression used several times in that year’s issues. It referred to the fact that farm women were making noise, stirring things up and taking a stand when demanding money and recognition for their work, all of which had been traditionally unusual practice for farm women. We notice that it was the state they were challenging. They never blamed men for their less advantaged situation, and they never demanded anything from men, not even that rural men participated in a more equal sharing of house and family work. Several political issues of feminist nature were reported in the magazine that year. One article was about the NSRW co-operating with other women’s
Rural women, feminism and the politics of dentity
339
organizations in Norway - both second wave feminist organizations and women’s groups in political parties - to urge the government to investigate why so few women had been elected in the 1983 election. Later, it cut off co-operation with the same organizations in a campaign against pornography and prostitution, despite the fact that they agreed on the issue. Members probably no longer wished to be associated with feminist political groups and political parties. Instead, an editorial strongly advocated co-operation with other farming organizations. We take this to be a strong illustration of the politics of identity. By thus marking similarity with other rural organizations and difference from feminist organizations and political parties, they confirm and contest identity. Both political parties and the women’s movement might have been seen as threats to the traditional values and identity of the NSRW. In sum, family politics and social and cultural activities in rural communities were still given priority during the 1980s. At the same time, the occupational role of farm women had become a more important issue by 1984. Farm women were clearly presented as working women, and not primarily as housewives, but the two roles were still blurred. Comparisons with women in paid off-farm work may also indicate a shift in the self-perception of rural women, acknowledging women’s different relations to farming and off-farm work, and allowing more room for diversity within the category of rural women. When it comes to gender politics, there is no indication of any challenge to men’s more privileged position, nor of identification with the women’s movement. The 1984 editions show that by then the magazine had become far more occupied with women’s politics. It was probably easier to overlook the ideas of the women’s movement in the 1970s. By the 1980s it had become necessary to relate to them. The many articles reporting contemporary women’s issues were presented without any comments. This was a subtle way to introduce controversial issues that had become important, allowing members to make up their own minds without risking a split between them. 1994: ‘Timesare changing, and so are farm women’
The 1994 volume has a much more audience-oriented layout: more pictures, larger headings, more slogans and at the same time a more popular style. The cover pages often pictured young, happy and active women. Articles no longer just report talks, meetings and research results anonymously. There are more feature articles written by named journalists. The media society with its competition for public attention has obviously had an effect on the magazine. Characteristically, the first issue of 1994 contained a report from a course where committee members and all the county leaders were taught how to relate to mass media and develop their public relations skills. Me recognize a new phase in the organization; they had become more self-conscious and confident: “Look at what we have accomplished!” “Can anyone do it better?” are phrases from articles reporting local activities. Individualism was not dominant, but there
340
Brandth and Haugen
Figure 3: NBK-nytt cover page f i o m 1994 illustrating the focus on women themselves. (NBK-nytt. Medlemsblad for Norges Bondekvinnekzg, No. 6 , 1994)
were trends in that direction, such as reports on local activities such as fashion and hair-dressing, jogging and other fitness activities, concern with menopause and health problems. Through the magazine the organization put a lot of energy into marketing and into the recruitment of new members, particularly young members. Concern with the ageing membership, which we found emerging in the 1984 volume, was centrestage in 1994. To attract new members the NSRW profiled itself as an organization for active and conscious rural women with a central goal for their work to secure viable rural areas in every respect. Being a network for women in rural areas was marketed as one important benefit of membership. By 1994 it seemed more important than previously to legitimate the farm woman’s role since it had come under pressure. Many women had left agriculture and were working in off-farm jobs (6 per cent in 1969; 50 per cent in 1994). In light of this, magazine articles stressed the important role and place of farm women, arguing that they express an identity: representing something special and being different from others. Farm women might even be models for men in many cases. One such case concerned safety at work. Another concerned taking care of local resources.
Rural women, feminism and the politics of Identity
341
There were two important events in Norway that year which also affected the activities of the Norwegian Society of Rural Women. One was the Olympic Winter Games which took place in February. This became an opportunity to show national culture and products, and at the same time to confirm and strengthen national rural women’s identity. The other event was the referendum in which the Norwegians were to decide on joining the European Community. The NSRW took a firm stand against Norwegian membership, and the autumn issues were mostly devoted to this theme. The main argument against was that the Rome and Maastricht treaties were in conflict with the goals of the organization. “A no to the EC is a yes to the global, long term sustainable thinking written into our objectives” (1994,3, p. 11). Other arguments against membership were the fear that welfare policies would be reduced, that public jobs for women would disappear, that EC agricultural politics would not benefit Norwegian agriculture and, not least, that it is a male organization in which women would have little influence, and women’s values no weight. It is interesting to see how ideas of a women’s culture and women’s values became visible in this context. Here we see traces of ‘difference feminism’ which emphasizes that which is specifically feminine and distinct from the masculine. In 1994 we find, for the first time, examples of women’s work being explicitly measured against men’s work, rejecting the hierarchical thinking that ranked men’s work higher than women’s work. It had probably become more difficult to focus on what was specifically feminine, without considering the existing ranking of gender. This is expressed in the following statement, taken from what was called ‘Turid’s speech’ (NSRW President): We cannot accept the idea that it is worth more to drive a tractor than to milk a cow, not to mention all the important tasks of care that must be carried out in order for the family to be able to function. Women have the primary role in creating the social environment, and a good environment is the basis for most good results. (1994, 4, p. 3)
Here we see a protest against men’s work being given higher value, but this is not taken to imply that women and men should do the same type of work. The division of labour between women and men on the farm is still not challenged. Women have a different role, and it should be valued equally with men’s. This claim that women’s work is worth as much as men’s work, has much in common with a feminist difference perspective. Here is no mention of equality in the liberal sense. In sum: to strengthen the family as the basic unit of society was as important in the 1990s as it had been the two previous decades. Love and care rather than material values should be cherished. Cherishing, in this case, also meant fighting for wages and pension rights for care work. In 1994, there are more clearly stated feminist opinions. While still valuing harmonious gender relations, they carefully take issue with the idea of male superiority.
342 Rural women
Brandth and Haugen
- stability and change
In this article we have addressed two questions. Our first question concerned feminism in a rural context: what elements of feminist thought or what kind of feminist issues has NSRW, the only rural and farm women’s organization in Norway, addressed the last two decades? Our second question focussed on gender ideology and rural women’s self-perception: how have rural women defined and redefined themselves during this period? As pointed out, the NSRW was not founded to promote women’s issues, but to organize women to work for the well-being of rural people. The women who joined the organization did not do so to contest any rural practices and definitions of women, rather to support and preserve them. The NSRW has had a far from high profile on feminist issues. In the 1970s it was quite ambivalent to equal rights legislation, and seemed to avoid feminist issues. In the 1980s there was a very subtle approach to issues on the contemporary feminist agenda. Its effort was to make women’s work visible, acknowledged and valued. Only in the 1990s do we see the unequal power relations of rural women and men hinted at in the magazine. The NSRW has not taken part in the fight for equal rights where inequality between genders has been regarded as the result of discrimination against women, and the solution to work for the same opportunities and rights for women and men. Rather, its strategy as communicated by the magazine has been to work towards an increased appreciation of women’s traditional areas of operation. In so doing it has chosen a line of co-operation rather than one of confrontation with men, believing that women and men have basically the same interests: protection of the family unit, tradition, culture and a living rural community. Better recognition of farm women’s efforts would be one of the means to ensure these goals. The organization has not striven for individual rights for women at the expense of any common good, but rather as a means to preserve the common good. Magazine articles have shown that in their effort to enhance the value of women’s domestic and farm work, farm women of the NSRW have compared themselves to women in other types of work. It was in this context that farm women started to seek their own rights and improved status during the 1970s and 1980s. They demanded equal rights for all women - whether their work was in the home, on the farm, or off the farm - but they did not compare with men. N o articles questioned the gendered division of labour, the unequal distribution of privileges or gendered power relations. During the twenty-year period we have studied, major social changes have taken place in the lives of women, with a significant increase in women’s education and career activity. The NSRW’s task has become more complicated since it can no longer approach farm women in the traditional sense. During the 1990s, farm women, not to mention rural women, have become a very heterogeneous group when it comes to work and occupation. Magazine articles
Rural women, feminism and the politics of ldentity
343
show both continuity and change in rural women’s self-image.O n the one hand, women are safely defined within a family-farm context where they see themselves as important caretakers and farmhands as well as participants in the rural community. O n the other hand, we find stronger emphasis on a rural identity. Indwidual interests are also more focussed in the magazine’s 1994 volume. A major question for NSRW is how they can manage t o unite the various groups of rural women and create a common platform for them all as members of the organization. In order to attract rural women, efforts to develop the organization’s profile and ideological foundation are continuous. They continue to argue the case for women’s specificity and special responsibility and capacity to care for the local and global environment. It might be difficult to create common ground for organizing women in the 1990s without defining what it is that differentiates women as a group from men as a group. We see tendencies toward a discussion of differences, but only tendencies. There has, however, been an increased focus on what women in rural areas may have in common, such as an interest in preserving an active rural society, natural environment and sustainable life style, opposition to the EU, purchasing Norwegian products, profiling Norwegian culture (Olympics), fashion, exercise and health. These are issues that can unite women in spite of any differences they may have, but they do not really distinguish them from men. Through this process, women’s profile partially disappears. When the goal of major issues is to unite various types of rural women, they easily become issues that apply to men. But the NSRW will continue to live with many paradoxes and major challenges in the time to come. As has been pointed out, emphasizing the diversity in women’s experience and interests may be a political risk (Farganis 1994). For a socio-political organization to remain intact there must be a sufficient feeling of common identity to form the basis for shaping common politics. What we see here is how difficult it might be to design a practical feminist politics of plurality. This partially explains why the NSRW has no uniform politics of identity during the 1990s but has focussed, rather, on the rural community and common rural interests.
Notes 1. In this paper we use the term ‘rural’ women for women living in rural areas in general and ‘farm’ women for the rural women who actually live and work on farms. 2. These strands of thought are developed, described and used by many feminist scholars. As we see it, they have become part of the common heritage of feminist thought. They are relevant whether the objective is to position research questions, to study different meanings of gender, or political strategies of change. 3. Study years were chosen to cover ten year intervals. The first year, 1974, was the year in which the Amendment to the Act regulating succession to farms was passed,
344
Brandth and Haugen
giving equal rights to women. The final year, 1994, was the last complete year before the study began. 4. The Norwegian phrase is Trampe i klaveret (To put one’s foot in the piano).
References Agricultural Statistics (1993), Oficial statistics Norway (Oslo, Kongsvinger: Statistics Norway) Brandth, B. and B. Verstad eds. (1993) Kvinneliw i landbruket (Oslo: Landbruksforlaget) Burg, M. van der and M. Endeveld eds. (1994) Women onfamilyfarms. Gender research, EC policies and new perspectives (Wageningen: Circle for Rural European Studies) Calhoun, C. ed. (1994) Social theory and the politics of identity (Oxford: Basil Blackwell) Dragsund, K. (1995) Kwinnegiv for bygdeliw. 50 b med Norges Bondekvinnefug (Oslo: Landbruksforlaget) Efstratoglou, S. and S.Mavridou (1996) Comparative analysis of the labour situation of farm women in diversified and non-diversified rural areas of Europe (Athens: Agricultural University of Athens) Farganis, S. (1994) Situatingfeminism (London: Sage) Gjerdaker, B. (1995) Bygdesamfunn i omveltning 1945-1996 (Oslo: Landbruksforlaget) Haugen, M. S. (1990) Kwinnebonden. Report no. 7/90 (Trondheim: Centre for Rural Research) Liepins, R. (1996) Reading agricultural power. Media as sites and processes in the construction of meaning. New England Geographer 52 (2) pp. 3-10 Poiner, G. (1996) Feminism and country women. Paper presented at the 61h International Interdisciplinary Congress on Women, Adelaide, Australia 22-26 April Shortall, S. (1994) Farm women’s groups: Feminist or farming or community groups, or new social movements? Sociology 28 (1) pp. 229-291 Stortingsmelding (1973/74): Familiemeldingen (Barnefarnilienes levekar) no. 5 1 Teather, E. (1994) Contesting rurality: country women’s social and political networks. Pp. 31-49 in S. Whatmore, T. Marsden and P. Lowe eds. Gender and Ruraliy (London: David Fulton) Teather, E. (1995) Farm women in Canada, New Zealand and Australia redefine their rurality. Zemedelska Ekonomika 41 (10-11) pp. 481-494 Teather, E. (1996) Rural women’s self-concepts and aspirations as members of selected voluntary organizations in New Zealand, Australia and Canada. N e w Zealand Geogrupher 52 (2) pp. 35-45 Walter, G. and S. Wilson (1996) Silent partners: women in farm magazine success stories, 1934-91. Rural Sociology 61 (2) pp. 227-248 Wilson, E. (1986) Hidden agendas. Theory, politics, and experience in women’s movement (London: Tavistock Publications) Whatmore, S., T. Marsden and P. Lowe eds. (1994) GenderandRurality (London: David Fulton)
