Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T06:52:48.586Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rereading Titmuss: The Sexual Division of Welfare*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2009

Hilary Rose
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The new social policy demonstrates its theoretical concern with the relations between the welfare services, the economy and the state. This new found political economy of welfare leaves behind the micro-concerns of the Titmuss paradigm. Through a critical re-examination of Titmuss, the article, while welcoming the research programme of the new social policy, urges that the specific strength of the old (especially so far as women are concerned) is not prematurely abandoned. In a period of economic and political crisis, where the state is actively restructuring the provision of welfare, detailed and systematical analyses of the implications of this process for both class and gender are urgently required. The need for work on gender is underlined because of the sex blindness of influential Liberal and Left theoretical writings. It is not that such theorists are unfriendly to feminist work but rather that it stands ‘outside’ their explanation. The need to reconceptualize welfare as a service provided primarily by the paid and unpaid labour of women remains.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 10 , Issue 4 , October 1981 , pp. 477 - 501
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The synthetic ambitions of the ‘new social policy’ are demonstrated by Donnison's, David ‘Social Policy since Titmuss’, Journal of Social Policy, 8:2 (1979), 145–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2 The claim to be ‘doing sociology’ was made purely linguistically, thus his third paper on the NHS was subtitled ‘Science and the Sociology of Medical Care’, Titmuss, R. M., Essays on the Welfare State (EWS), Allen and Unwin, London, 1958.Google Scholar

3 Titmuss, , EWS, op. cit.Google Scholar

4 Titmuss, R. M., Social Policy (SP), posthumously edited by Abel-Smith, Brian and Titmuss, Kay, Allen and Unwin, London, 1975, p. 59.Google Scholar

5 Titmuss, R. M., Problems of Social Policy (PSP), HMSO, London, 1950.Google Scholar

6 Reisman, D. A., Richard Titmuss: Welfare Society, Heinemann, London, 1977.Google Scholar

7 Leach, Edmund, New Society, 21 01 1971, p. 114.Google Scholar

8 Titmuss, R. M., The Gift Relationship: from Human Blood to Social Policy (GR), Allen and Unwin, London, 1970.Google Scholar

9 Both papers are included in EWS, op. cit.

10 Ibid. p. 98.

11 Friedmann, G., Industrial Society: The Emergence of the Human Problems of Automation, Glencoe Illinois Free Press, 1955.Google Scholar

12 Titmuss, , EWS, op. cit. p. 117.Google Scholar

13 Donnison, , op. cit.Google Scholar

14 Tawney, R. H., New Statesman and Nation, 22 04 1950, 454–6.Google Scholar

15 This period is reported in Donnison, op. cit. and in Margaret Gowing's biographical essay ‘Richard Morris Titmuss’, Proceedings of the British Academy, LXI (1975), 401–27.Google Scholar

16 Wilensky, H. and Lebaux, C., Industrial Society and Social Welfare, Sage, New York, 1958.Google Scholar

17 Wedderburn, Dorothy, ‘Facts and Theories of the Welfare State’, in Miliband, Ralph and Saville, John (eds), The Socialist Register, Merlin, London, 1965, pp. 139–45.Google Scholar

18 Titmuss was very quick to see the challenge of the IEA while most people concerned with social policy underestimated their potential influence.

19 Titmuss, R. M., Poverty and Population: A Factual Study of Social Waste, Macmillan, London, 1938.Google Scholar

20 This optimistic reversal ‘I believe the present alarm is unjustified’ appeared initially in an article in Political Quarterly, XXVI:2 (1955) and was republished in EWS, op. cit. p. 56.Google Scholar

21 Titmuss, R. M. and Clark, Frederick Le Gros, Our Food Problem, Penguin Special, Harmondsworth, 1939.Google Scholar

22 Titmuss, R. M. and Titmuss, Kay, The Parents Revolt, Seeker and Warburg, London, 1942.Google Scholar

23 Titmuss, R. M., Birth Poverty and Wealth, Hamish Hamilton, London, 1943.Google Scholar

24 Gowing, , op. cit.Google Scholar

25 See Pinker's introduction to Reismann, , op. cit.Google Scholar

26 Gowing, , op. cit.Google Scholar

27 Nairn, Tom, The Left Against Europe, Penguin in association with New Left Review, Harmondsworth, 1973.Google Scholar

28 Titmuss, , GR, op. cit.Google Scholar

29 Titmuss, R. M. and Abel-Smith, Brian, The Cost of the NHS in England and Wales, Cambridge University Press, 1956.Google Scholar

30 Titmuss, R. M., Abel-Smith, Brian and Lynes, Tony, Social Policies and Population Growth in Mauritius, 1961.Google Scholar

31 Titmuss, R. M. and Able-Smith, Brian, The Health Services of Tanganyika, 1964.Google Scholar

32 A process importantly aided by Seebohm Rowntree's repeat study of poverty in York in 1951: Rowntree, B. S. and Lavers, G. R., Poverty and the Welfare State, Longmans Green, London, 1951.Google Scholar

33 Saville, John, ‘Labour and Income Distribution’, in Miliband, R. and Saville, J. (eds), The Socialist Register, Merlin, London, 1965.Google Scholar

34 Thompson, Dorothy, ‘The Welfare State: An Historical Approach’, New Reasoner, 4 (1957), 127–8.Google Scholar

35 Abel-Smith, Brian, ‘Whose Welfare State?’ in McKenzie, N. (ed.), Conviction, McGibbon and Kee, London, 1957.Google Scholar

36 Harvey, Audrey, Casualties of the Welfare State, Fabian Society, London, 1960.Google Scholar

37 Townsend, Peter, ‘Measuring Poverty’, British Journal of Sociology, V:2 (1954), 130–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

38 Townsend, Peter, The Last Refuge, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1962.Google Scholar

39 Titmuss, R. M., The Irresponsible Society (IS), Fabian Society, London, 1959.Google Scholar

40 Gough, Ian, The Political Economy of Welfare, Macmillan, London, 1979, p. 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

41 This conservatism was perhaps best shown in Titmuss's attitude to the welfare rights movement. His own work fostered the view that welfare was a right in the good society yet as his Political Quarterly article ‘Welfare Rights: Law and Discretion’, (04 1971)Google Scholar, and the introduction to the first SBC Handbook were to show, his conception of a ‘right’ was very different from that of the new poverty lawyers.

42 Titmuss, R. M., Income Distribution and Social Change, Allen and Unwin, London, 1962.Google Scholar

43 Gouldner, Alvin, The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology, Heinemann, London, 1971, pp. 500–3.Google Scholar

44 The late Professor E. B. Chain was afforded this benefit in his then new post at Imperial College. A private foundation, utilizing monies which would otherwise have gone to the Exchequer, aided the College in their effort to recruit the Nobel Prize winner to the new biochemistry department opened in 1964.

45 Townsend, Peter, Poverty in the United Kingdom, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1979.Google Scholar

46 Inequalities in Health (Black Report), Department of Health and Social Security, London, 1980.Google Scholar

47 Sinfield, Adrian, ‘Analyses in the Social Division of Welfare’, Journal of Social Policy, 7:2 (1978), 129–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

48 Land, Hilary, ‘Women: Supporters or Supported?’, in Barker, Diana Leonard and Allen, Sheila (eds.), Sexual Divisions and Society, Tavistock, London, 1978Google Scholar; Land, Hilary, ‘Who Cares for the Family?’, Journal of Social Policy, 7:3 (07 1978), 275–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Land, Hilary, ‘The Family Wage’, Feminist Review, 6 (1980), 55–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

49 John Greve's, and his colleagues', work on homelessness removes much of the psychopathological definition of the victim and transfers it to the socio circumstances in which the homeless person finds him or herself. See Greve, J., London's Homeless, Bell, London, 1964Google Scholar; and Greve, J., Homelessness in London, Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh, 1971.Google Scholar

50 Some beginnings have been made. In Britain these would include writings about the experience of battered women and homelessness. See Hanmer, Jalna, ‘Violence and the Social Control of Women’ in Littlejohn, G., Wakeford, J. and Davies, N. Yural (eds), Power and the State, Croom Helm, LondonGoogle Scholar; and Rose, Hilary, ‘In Practice Supported in Theory Denied: an account of an invisible social movement’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 2:3 (1978), 521–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar A recent book more generally discussing the issue is Brion, Marion and Tinker, Anthea, Women in Housing, The Housing Centre Trust, London, 1980.Google Scholar

51 Reisman, , op. cit.Google Scholar

52 Gowing, , op. cit.Google Scholar

53 Piven, Frances Fox and Cloward, Richard, Regulating the Poor, Pantheon, New York, 1971Google Scholar; and Poor People's Movements, Pantheon, New York, 1977.Google Scholar

54 O'Connor, James, The Fiscal Crisis of the State, St Martins Press, New York, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

55 Gough, , op. cit.Google Scholar

56 Donnison, , op. cit.Google Scholar

57 Wilensky, H., The New Corporatism: Centralism and the Welfare State, New York, 1976.Google Scholar

58 The political economy of the city, particularly in the hands of the structuralist Manuel Castello and his Paris colleagues, has been highly influential in recent years. Two useful collections written within a political economy approach are Pickvance, Christopher (ed.), Urban Sociology: Critical Essays, Tavistock, London, 1976Google Scholar; and Harloe, Michael (ed.), Captive Cities, John Wiley, London, 1977.Google Scholar

59 While it is too soon to say that an effective feminist critique of this work has been mounted, there are useful beginnings in the special issue of ‘Women and the City’ of the International Journal of Urban and Regional Studies, 2:3 (1978)Google Scholar; see the contributions of Garmikov, Eva, Ettore, E. M. and Rose, Hilary; see also the special issue of Signs, ‘Women and the American City’, 5:3 (1980).Google Scholar

60 Engels, Frederick, ‘The Origin of the Family: Private Property and the State’, preface to Marx Engels: Selected Works, Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1968, p. 449.Google Scholar

61 Marx, Karl, The German Ideology, Part I, Feuerbach, International Publishers, New York, 1947, p. 22.Google Scholar

62 This debate, which importantly restored housework as visible labour, so that left and right economists alike calculate it as contributing another 30–40 per cent of GNP, became so involved in remarkably sterile debates as to whether it contributed use value or exchange value that the significance that it was almost entirely carried out by women was lost. In Britain the debate was most sharply expressed in an exchange between Christine Delphy and Michelle Barrett and Mary McKintosh. See Delphy, C., The Main Enemy, Women's Research and Resources Centre, London, 1976Google Scholar; Barrett, M. and McKintosh, M., ‘Christine Delphy Towards a Materialist Feminism?’, Feminist Review, 1 (1979), 95–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Delphy, C., ‘A Materialist Feminism is Possible’, Feminist Review, 3 (1979), 79–105.Google Scholar

63 See Aries, P., Centuries of Childhood, Vantage, New York, 1962Google Scholar; Rapp, R., Ross, E. and Bridenthal, R., ‘Examining Family History’, Feminist Studies, 5:1 (1979), 74–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stone, L., The Family, Sex and Marriage 1500–1800, Harper Row, New York, 1977Google Scholar; Lasch, C., Haven in a Heartless World, Basic Books, New York, 1977.Google Scholar

64 Hartmann, Heidi, ‘The Family as a Locus of Gender, Class and Political Struggle: The Example of Housework’, Signs, VI:2 (Spring 1981).Google Scholar

65 Oren, Laura, ‘The Welfare of Women in Labouring Families: England 1860–1950’, Feminist Studies, V:1 (1974), 107–25.Google Scholar

66 Barnard, Jessie, The Future of Marriage, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1972.Google Scholar

67 Land, , ‘The Family Wage’, op. cit.Google Scholar

68 See Oren, , op. cit.Google Scholar; Hartman, , op. cit.Google Scholar; and Young, Michael, ‘The Distribution of Income within the Family’, British Journal of Sociology, 3 (1952), 305–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

69 Hakim, Catherine, ‘Sexual Divisions within the Labour Force: Occupation Segregation’, Department of Employment Gazette, 11 1978.Google Scholar

70 Kickbush, Ilona, ‘Women's Paid and Unpaid Labour’, paper given at the Research Committee on Social Policy, International Sociological Conference,Uppsala, 1978.Google Scholar

71 For this argument directed towards the connections between women's labour, the family and the welfare state see Balbo, Laura, ‘The Family and the British Welfare State’ (translated mimeo from) Balbo, L. and Sahar, R., Interferize: Lo Stato, La Vita Familiare, LaVita Priva, Milan, 1979Google Scholar; Rose, Hilary, ‘Towards a Feminist Political Economy of Welfare’, paper given at the Research Committee on Social Policy, International Sociological Association Conference,Uppsala, 1978Google Scholar; Wilson, Elizabeth, Women and the Welfare State, Tavistock, London, 1976Google Scholar; and Zaretsky, Eli, ‘The Welfare State and the Family’, mimeo, Duke University, 1980.Google Scholar

72 Gershuny, Jay, After Industrial Society, Macmillan, London, 1978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

73 Bott, Elizabeth, Famliy and Social Network, Tavistock, London, 1957.Google Scholar

74 Rappoport, R. L. and Rappoport, R., Dual Career Families, Tavistock, London, 1971.Google Scholar

75 Young, Michael and Wilmott, Peter, The Symmetrical Family, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1973.Google Scholar

76 Ehrenrich, Barbara and English, Deidre, For Her Own Good, Pluto, London, 1979.Google Scholar

78 Hartman, , op. cit.Google Scholar

79 The concordance between this objective and the views of the Secretary of State for Social Service will not have escaped the reader.

80 Young, Michael, ‘The Distribution of Income within the Family’, op. cit.Google Scholar

81 Pahl, Jan, ‘Patterns of Money Management within Marriage’, Journal of Social Policy, 9:3 (07 1980), 313–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

82 See London Women's Liberation Campaign for Legal and Financial Independence and Rights of Women, ‘Disaggregation Now! Another Battle for Women's Independence’, Feminist Review, 2 (1979), 19–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

83 Barnard, , op. cit.Google Scholar

84 Townsend, , Poverty in the United Kingdom, op. cit.Google Scholar