Saturday, September 19, 2009
How Northwestern Europe was Strange: Marriage, Households, and History
In the first Chapter of The Household and the Making of History, Mary Hartman shows the link between the age of marriage, household structure, gender roles and how Western Europe progressed from what she called a "backward periphery on the western fringes"(pg 1) into one of the more advanced areas of the world. She argues that while in most social arenas men were the dominate players, but that through domestic arenas, and thus women, many of modern history's best features are the result of marriage and the household system. Despite the generally excepted notion of very young marriages in the medieval era, Hartman argues that people actually tended to marry at an older age. She says that by marrying later many women first worked outside of their homes and when they did get married the couple tended to pool their resources and start their own nuclear family. Hartman claims that streamlined households would explain, in part, why the economical changes that led to industrialization occurred. towards the end of the chapter Hartman once again reminds us that she believes that women helped shape the world and history just as much as men did, and that women are not often given the credit they deserve in the writing of history.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I agree with many things that were written in this post, but I don't think her main argument is that women shaped history as much as men. By Hartman's time this is already understood in the field of Family history. Hartman's main point, which this author hints to, was that in North Western Europe there was a trend of women marrying men of equal age in their mid 20's; this changed the whole makeup of the family becuase it "challenged men's control" and "sharply reduced the domestic authority of men as heads of the household"(p.32). As women married later in their lives they came into that marriage with more experience and more financial means making them less susceptible to male domination in the home. Hartman argues that this type of marriage altered society drastically politically, socially,and culturally and has been overlooked as the main source of change
I found very interesting Mary Hartman’s argument for the late-marriage system influencing the development of Western Europe. She noted how “the late-marriage pattern is increasingly becoming the norm in many societies” and the early-marriage system is increasingly seen as abnormal (Hartman 30). This analysis made me wonder if there is a maximum age of marriage when the system can actually become a harmful pattern. I did some casual research on the age of marriage in Western Europe today and was shocked to see how it has risen significantly even within the last 20 years or so (http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/qualityoflife/eurlife/index.php?template=3&radioindic=186&idDomain=5). I found in another source for example that in 2008 the average age of first marriage for women in Spain is 32.9 and men 33.6! (http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/qualityoflife/eurlife/index.php?template=3&radioindic=186&idDomain=5) In other Western European countries the typical age of marriage for women is in their very late 20’s and men their early thirties. The statistics for persons choosing not to marry at all have also risen. I question if this new late marriage system could actually be a detriment to developing, or even sustaining European society. Certainly the new pattern negatively affects the birthrate, and without a population, how can Europe expect to continue being a major historical player?
Allison brings up current demographic trends that we will discuss more as we go forward, but she has tapped into one of the greatest concerns for European governments since the late 19th century: population. And by that they usually mean something about race, nation, and military strength. Europe's population continues to grow, but much of its growth comes from immigration and from higher birth rates among immigrant groups. Therefore, when Europeans bemoan the state of their population they are often making not-so-vague references to worries about racial, religious, and national identity; their fears are exactly what Allison articulated: what will become of us?
The world Hartman describes is very different because the reasons for delaying marriage are very different and have very different consequences, but it is interesting to note that changing European demographics continue to shape political decisions and rhetoric.
I would like to further comment on the discussion of Hartman's argument about women.
I think throughout this chapter she is laying the framwork for her entire book. Thus she tells us many arguments. She starts with her main argument and then gives differnt claims as a result of her main point. Hartman points out that women in the Northwestern Europe were marrying later before moderninty occured and compared to Eastern Europe. (As we read in later chapters she attributes this difference to that fact that, northwestern families had greater autonomy in their decisions and that the northwest was underpopulated and underexploited. Thus because of this it was necessary for women to also work for survival. Women then married latter.) Hartman continues her argument with sub-arguements. Late marriage patterns have several effects on the family. One of which is the role of women and industrialization.
So her main argument doesn't appear to be about women shapping history, but it is one of her subpoints. Further more, Hartman is arguing that women played a larger role in the daily affairs of the family than most are aware of. So I disagree with Tim's statment that this was already understood in history because of our class discussion. During this time men began to realize that women did have this larger role. So in an attempt to deal with this "power struggle" some of the literature of the time reflects a male dominated society with women extremley subjected to their husbands. (women still didn't have the same rights as men) So if these documents are read at face value it will appear that women didn't play have an important role in their households. That is why I feel that this is not a widley accepted notion in history for this time period.
Post a Comment