Subsistence Strategies and the Division of Labor by Gender Among Clothes Makers in Nonindustrial Societies

Abstract

This article tests the proposition that the division of labor by gender among clothes makers in nonindustrial societies is associated with the relative dependence of the artisan’s family on commercial production. A cross-cultural test using the Human Relations Area Files (HRAF) probability sample finds that a man is more likely to make clothes if his nuclear family depends on clothes making more than other forms of subsistence production. There are a variety of evolutionary paths that may lead to men’s participation in clothes making. The proximate causes include agricultural intensification and the encroachment of long-distance trade networks. Whatever the pathway or causal mechanisms, the division of labor by gender is sensitive to the contingencies that affect the relative value of one’s labor.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arnold, D. E. (1989). Patterns of learning, residence and descent among potters in Ticul, Yucatan, Mexico. In S. Shennan (Ed.), Archaeological approaches to cultural identity. London: Unwin Hyman.

Barton, R. F. (1922). Ifugao economics(University of California publications in American archaeology and ethnology) (Vol. 15, pp. 385-446). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Bohannan, P. , & Bohannan, L. (1967). Tiv economy. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press.

Bradley, C. (1986). Women, children, and work. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms International.

Bradley, C. , Moore, C. C. , Burton, M. L. , & White, D. R. (1990). A crosscultural historical analysis of subsistence change. American Anthropologist, 92(2), 447-458.

Burling, R. (1963). Rengsanggri: Family and kinship in a Garo village. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Burton, M. L. , Brudner, L. A. ,& White, D. R. (1977). A model of the sexual division of labor. American Ethnologist, 4, 227-251.

Byrne, B. T. (1994). Access to subsistence resources and the sexual division of labor among potters. Cross-Cultural Research, 28(3), 225-250.

Evans-Pritchard, E. (1949). TheSanusi of Cyrenaica. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.

10.

Foster, G. (1967). Contemporary pottery and basketry. In R. Wauchope & M. Nash (Eds.), Handbook of middle American Indians(Vol. 6, pp. 103-124). Austin: University of Texas Press.

11.

Hill, P. (1972). Rural Hausa: A village and a setting. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

12.

Klein, L. F. (1995). Mothers as clanswomen: Rank and gender in Tlingit society. In L. F. Klein and L. A. Ackerman (Eds.), Women and power in native north America. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.

13.

Masters, W. M. (1953). Rowanduz. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan.

14.

Mills, B. (1995). Gender and the reorganization of historic Zuni craft production: Implications for archaeological interpretations. Journal of Anthropological Research, 51(2), 149-172.

15.

Murdock, G. P. (1934). Ourprimitive contemporaries. NewYork: Macmillan.

16.

Murdock, G. P. ,& Morrow, D. E. (1970). Subsistence economy and supportive practices: Cross-cultural codes 1. Ethnology, 9, 302-330.

17.

Murdock, G. P. , & Provost, C. (1973). Factors in the Division of Labor by Sex: A Cross-cultural Analysis. Ethnology, 12,203-225.

18.

Naroll, M. , Naroll F. , & Naroll, R. (1989). Women’s occupational opportunities: A cross-cultural test. Behavior Science Research, 23, 205-233.

19.

O’Brian, R. (1999). Who weaves and why? Weaving, loom complexity, and trade. Cross-Cultural Research, 33(1), 30-42.

20.

Roscoe, J. (1956). The Baganda(2nd ed.). London: Frank Cass & Co.

21.

Smith, E. A. (1992). Inujuamit foragers. Chicago: Aldine.

22.

Stout, D. C. (1947). San Blas Cuna acculturation. Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, 9, 1-124.

23.

Turner, V. W. (1952). The Lozi: Peoples of north-western Rhodesia. London: International African Institute.

24.

White, D. R. , Burton M. L. , & Brudner, L. A. (1977). Entailment theory and method: A cross-cultural analysis of the sexual division of labor. Behavior Science Research, 12, 1-24.