Ploughing along in a world of inequalities

Is there a historical link between using a plough – a heavy agricultural tool to prepare soil before sowing – and the varied gender roles in society as we see them today?

Why is it that in some cultures, women are active participants in employment outside their homes, whereas in some they prefer to remain bound to the confines of their homes?

Time and again, these questions have thrown up many theories and hypotheses. There are a number of studies that provide evidence that the roles that women eventually play in the society actually are an outcome of the differences in cultural and religious beliefs across geographies.

But, a new paper by National Bureau of Economic Research raises the question of the historical origins of these norms and beliefs and the differences in their practice that define the role of women. It finds out that traditional agricultural practices may have influenced the historical gender division of labour that we see today.

The paper, “ On the Origins of Gender Roles: Women and the Plough ”, by Alberto F. Alesina, Paola Giuliano, and Nathan Nunn , finds that women who belonged to societies that practised plough agriculture had lower rates of participation in the workplace, in politics and in entrepreneurial activities, In short, “there was greater prevalence of attitudes favouring gender inequality” in such societies.

Role differences

According to an earlier study in 1970, by Ester Boserup, gender role differences had their origins in different forms of traditional agricultural practices, such as shifting cultivation and plough cultivation.

“Shifting cultivation, which uses hand-held tools such as the hoe and the digging stick, is labour-intensive and women actively participate in farm work.

Plough cultivation, by contrast, is much more capital-intensive, using the plough to prepare the soil,” says the study.

Since ploughing requires upper body and grip strength, some times even requiring the power to control the animal pulling it, men have been at a greater advantage than women.

“Reinforcing this gender-bias in ability is the fact that when the plough is used, there is less need for weeding, a task typically undertaken by women and children”, says the study.

In contrast, using the hoe — a flat-bladed light tool for digging out weeds and planting saplings — for agriculture was more suited to women. And, since child care, which has always been a woman's responsibility, was considered more compatible with activities that can be stopped and resumed easily, hoe agriculture was considered better for women.

In his study, Boserup held that “societies that traditionally practised plough agriculture – rather than shifting cultivation – developed a specialisation of production along gender lines.

Division of labour

Men tended to work outside of the home in the fields, while women specialised in activities within the home.”

It is this division of labour that eventually defined the role of women. Societies characterised by plough agriculture, and a resulting gender-based division of labour, developed the belief that the natural place for women is within the home, says the paper.

Unfortunately, these beliefs and practices with regard to women continue even today, when most economies are moving away from agriculture

Digging deeper into Boserup's thesis and using ethnographic evidence, the authors of this paper find more evidence of a historical link between plough use and decline in female participation in agriculture, more specifically in tasks such as land clearance, soil preparation, planting, crop tending and harvesting.

Control of property

Frederick Engel had explained the origin of gender role differences as a result of intensification of agriculture, leading to the emergence of private property monopolised by men. It is this control of private property that allowed men to subjugate women, making wives even more dependent on husbands and their property, and making them no longer active and equal participants in community life, he said.

This paper goes further and examines various other factors and variables, such as religion and ethnicity, even individual estimates, and links them to the traditional plough use and the subordinate status of women. It finds that the current differences in gender attitudes and female behaviour have indeed been shaped by historical differences in agricultural systems.

To drive home the point, the authors even examine variations across second-generation female immigrants born and living in the US, but come from different cultural backgrounds. They take two samples of women, one that includes all women aged 15 to 64 and another that only includes married women in the same age group.

In both cases, it is found that apart from the fact that all these immigrant women face the same labour market, institutions and policies, the one common history that they share is the use of the plough and its link with less female labour force participation.

So, while women fight against centuries of subjugation and gender inequalities, both inside and outside the home, they would do well to remember that it is, probably, the plough and man's monopoly over it that is responsible for their present status in society.

COMMENT NOW