Sexual Division of Labor and Cross-Cultural Research

Abstract

T HE sexual division of labor is a universal phenomenon in culture which makes for differential productivity by the sexes. The importance of this disparity in relation to other features of social organization has been intimated by several authors. Steward, for example, has made the general statement that, Descent is male or female largely according to the importance of man or woman in that culture.' Gillin has observed that, Polygyny is especially congenial to cultural configurations in which each women is considered an asset on account of her worth or productiveness. 11d2 There has, however, been no attempt to express the factor of economic importance, worth, or productiveness in terms which would allow comparison between societies of differing economies. This paper suggests a unitary means of characterizing the differential contribution to subsistence by the sexes, and attempts to demonstrate the correlation of such contribution with marriage patterns. Such a treatment has methodological implications for further crosscultural research. Subsistence activities have long been a major concern of anthropologists. Ethnologists have dwelt on the food-quest because it looms so large in the lives of many peoples whose cultures are technologically simple, and archeologists have concerned themselves with it as a complex of which many material remains are available. The means of acquisition or production of food have even been used as the basis for differentiating developmental stages in evolutionistic schemes of historical interpretation. The preponderant importance of this aspect within the total economy of most societies is the reason for its selection here as the basis for comparison. Quite distinct from considerations in subsistence have been sociological studies emphasizing the sexual division of labor as an aspect of patterned interpersonal relationships based on ascribed roles, and others emphasizing innate psychological differences between man and woman. I submit that these factors-means of food production and division of labor-gain in significance when considered in relation to each other. It is difficult to evaluate the place of a productive activity in the broader cultural context without knowing just who does the bulk of the work. In like manner, data on sex participation in various activities are virtually meaningless unless related to the import of these undertakings within the total economy. Some means of characterizing the relative contribution of each sex to the common weal would be especially useful in cross-cultural research, where the emphasis is on combinations, or associations, of cultural elements. In attempting to relate factors with those of social organization in a large sample of world cultures, I have devised an index which has yielded some interesting correlations. The sample consists of 556 cultures in 50 geographical regions (which in most cases correspond to culture areas or groups of related culture areas). These cultures were selected by George P. Murdock with the specific aim of representing all the peoples of the world, including historical and contemporary civilizations as well as primitive societies.3 Historical, linguistic, and geographical criteria were all considered in an effort to achieve maximal scatter and to reduce the bias of historical interdependence to a minimum. I abstracted detailed information on subsistence activities and sexual division of labor from source materials on each society in the sample. From these data, it was possible to determine approximately the relative importance of each of the major classes of food-getting activities: namely, hunting and * An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 54th meeting of the American Anthropological Association held at Boston in November 1955. The author is grateful for helpful comments and suggestions supplied by Edward M. B3runer, Clyde Kluckhohn, and George P. Murdock. I Julian H. Steward, Ecological Aspects of Southwestern Society, Antliropos, 32 (1937), pp. 87-104. 2 John P. Gillin, The Ways of Men (New York: Appleton-Century, 1948), p. 426. 3George P. Murdock, World Ethnographic Sample, American Anthropologist, 59 (1957), pp. 664-687.