Part One
The Modern State and Contemporary Society â New Insights and New Contradications
1 Crazy quilts: rethinking the welfare state debate from a womanâs point of view
Laura Balbo
The current debate about the welfare state is inadequate and misleading because it has ignored women and their location in late capitalist society. If we examine womenâs work and the everyday coping strategies which lie behind it, we gain a better understanding about how society functions as a whole. Yet the concept and analysis of womenâs work today also needs to be rethought if we are to appreciate fully its relevance for the overall functioning of society. To attempt this double task, we are forced to coin new words or to give conventional words a new meaning, and we are led to look at both everyday phenomena and social organization in a new way. Feminism has often argued that womenâs experience and womenâs history can be the starting point for a new understanding of society, and it has often occurred to me that to describe living conditions in contemporary society1 from a womanâs perspective, the images and words of patchwork quilting are most appropriate: the endless sorting out and putting together of available resources, the minute coping strategies, the overall aim of survival, and the imagination, ingenuity and amount of work that these require.
Patchwork quilts â a metaphor
The techniques of quilt-making developed, initially, from economic conditions of extreme scarcity. Although quilting was an activity common to women from all social and economic backgrounds, it is not those who were wealthy or leisured that I wish to consider here. For the immigrants to America, the overworked women in newly settled land, the black women in the South, the poor white women in the mountains of Appalachia, quilting was necessary work, not a hobby. Quilts were needed to make the bed comfortable â this most important and often only piece of furniture in the house.
Much has been written recently to recapture the lives of these American women, through oral history and the history of American folklore and art, and through exhibitions and television programmes. It is the material conditions of these womenâs lives and the characteristics of their work â this particular and long-neglected aspect â that is so aptly described through the analogy of patchwork quilting; an analogy that is no less apt today to describe womenâs work in contemporary society. The passages or quotes from books about the history and techniques of quilt-making throughout this chapter serve as illustrations, drawing parallels between the everyday lives, resources and coping strategies of the early quilters and of women today.
This form of presentation, among other things, forces me to move away from the more conventional language of the social scientist and to use new words, indeed new concepts, that I find extremely thought-provoking. Piece-bags, sorting out, piecing, patching and quilting, are all words which suggest parallels to concepts that have been used (by myself and by others) to describe womenâs work in contemporary society: the servicing, the pooling and packaging of resources, the self-help activities, emotional work and survival networks; how women keep at their endless tasks, how they put their vision into the planning and design of their own and othersâ lives whose responsibility they carry.
Quilt-making entails hard work, long hours, patience and repetition. As with the work that women carry out within their families, it is mostly individual and isolated, although at times it provides an opportunity for meeting others and sharing activity. Yet it is creative, reflecting womenâs longing for beauty, and demonstrating their hidden and often unrecognized capacity for self-expression, communication and artistic endeavour.
Quilting was also practical. The quilters patiently preserved all materials left from the family sewing. They could not afford to waste any scraps or worn-out clothing. Out of an apparently immense variety of available fabrics they sorted and selected from what were, in fact, very limited options. They had freedom of design, but the patterns show repetition, regularity and constraints. Part of the work was boring and plain hard work: the lining and quilting, the endless stitching. Behind the beauty of the quilts we cannot fail to be aware of the long hours and the forgotten names: womenâs work, indeed.
The earliest quilts were known as Crazy Quilts. Women sewed odd-shaped scraps of fabric together and the result tended to resemble a jigsaw puzzle. Whenever times were lean and fabric scarce, women made crazy quilts.2
Patching the pieces together: needs and resources
Today, many resources are available in our society, but few live in affluence. As a result of changing economic conditions, life has become difficult for many in the middle class, and although times were hard enough for the poor all through the âaffluent yearsâ, they are getting painfully harder. Except for some groups in the population, resources never seem to be adequate in a society which demands that people constantly improve their economic and social conditions. The pressure to meet new needs, to live up to continuously rising standards, has been a crucial aspect of life in western societies in the 1960s and early 1970s. More recently, it has meant coping with the impact of inflation, unemployment and cutbacks in government spending which affect the provision of welfare and public services. In their daily lives the majority are hard-pressed and, like the quilters, juggle a variety of resources in order to survive.
Quilts as they were first made in America were the product of necessity was well as tradition. Factory-made blankets were unavailable ⌠fabric was scarce and expensive, and winters were cold. Women had to reuse every available scrap from worn out clothing in their quilts, lining them with worn out homespun blankets, wool, cotton or rags and backing them with muslin or homespun.3
Schematically, resources may be goods and services acquired in the market, on the basis of either earnings or cash welfare provisions, or both; and in a welfare system, social services delivered by a variety of public agencies or by firms, as âfringe benefitsâ, in such fields as housing, education, recreation and health. A number of tasks need to be performed by the family. In todayâs society resources are channelled to individuals, or rather families, from a variety of external social institutions. They must choose from existing alternatives; âcombineâ available resources from various agencies and institutions, whether public or private; âadjustâ them to the specific requirements of each family member, and provide services that are not available through other institutions. These tasks make a crucial contribution to both the quantity and efficient use of available resources and consequently, to the familyâs standards of living. It is therefore relevant to consider the family as a producer, a processor and a consumer of resources, within the larger system.4
Let us pause briefly here, to address a difficult terminological and theoretical issue. The word âfamilyâ is misleading in two ways: first, it is not true that ânuclear familiesâ â which is what is immediately implied if we use the term â are the ânormalâ or even the most frequent arrangement in our society. Second, âfamilyâ is a charged word, which suggests that there is an almost universal form of organization to which individuals belong or ought to belong. I do not intend to deal here with the enormous literature and debate about the family â its history, and its place in contemporary society. What is important is to stress that people live in a variety of arrangements: they are singles, couples, nuclear families, single parents. They are heterosexual and homosexual couples, they live in communes and in institutions. Possibly the most important eleme...