New Trends in the History of Working Women in Britain

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

The growth of women's history in recent years has been accompanied by regular reminders in Anglo-Saxon countries that the assumptions and sources appropriate to the history of male (and female) elites are no longer adequate.1 Male definitions of work, in particular, have been seen as inapplicable to women, most of whom worked traditionally in the household. The response of historians to these reminders has been slow, but the process of redefinition and reformulation is undoubtedly in progress, and particularly evident in studies of women in British society. Sheila Rowbotham's brief survey, Hidden from History, in 1973, suggested some possible approaches and others rapidly accepted her urging to 'dig deeper'.2 Already some trends are discernible in this writing, especially in relation to the kind of sources being used. This essay will attempt to review these trends and suggest some of the possible implications for future research. Unlike women in most comparable countries, those in Britain had already received sustained attention from historians before the recent revival of interest. Alongside an uninterrupted flow of writing on the feminist movement since the First World War, there had been some valuable pioneering studies of women's work. Books by Wanda F. Neff, Ivy Pinchbeck and Margaret Hewitt, especially, still remain essential starting points for serious researchers.3 All of them relied heavily on such official sources as the Parliamentary Blue Books, and the directions of their research were consequently set by assumptions embodied in those sources. Except where the pre-industrial domestic system survived, women's work was defined as an activity performed outside the home, in factories, mines, workshops or schoolrooms; Margaret Hewitt's encouraging study of housework and child-care was confined to that of the married factory operative. Women's activity in the home, then, was seen as significant only in relation to outside work for wages?a limitation of vision, perhaps, but an understandable one in terms of the sources used, the time of writing and state of the craft. For all their weaknesses these books remain valuable introductions to the history of working women, however narrowly defined. Their depth of critical analysis continues to surpass that of much similar but more recent work.4 There are now promising signs that a new generation of historians,