Pamela Herd Care Work

8/3/2019 Pamela Herd Care Work

1/25

Care Work: Invisible Civic EngagementAuthor(s): Pamela Herd and Madonna Harrington MeyerSource: Gender and Society, Vol. 16, No. 5 (Oct., 2002), pp. 665-688Published by: Sage Publications, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3081954 .

Accessed: 10/01/2011 06:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at .http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sage. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Sage Publications, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Gender and

Society.

http://www.jstor.org

8/3/2019 Pamela Herd Care Work

2/25

CARE WORKInvisible CivicEngagementPAMELAHERDUniversity of Michigan, Ann ArborMADONNA HARRINGTON MEYERSyracuse University

Scholarswho debate the cause of and solutions or the decline in civic engagementhavesuggestedthatAmericanshaveincreasinglywithdrawnfromommunity rganizations,reducing heirpoliticalactivitysuch as votingand interest n thepolitical world,andgenerally ailing toplace the commongood overindividual elf-interest.Theiranalysesaresteepedin a tradition hatis largely genderblind andconse-quently gnorescare work. We nfuse eministanalyses of paid laborandcitizenship,whichemphasizethe meritsand burdensofcarework, nto thecivicengagementdebate.Wearguethatcarework,predom-inantlyperformedby women,paradoxicallylimits, enhances,and even constitutesa vitalform of civicactivity.We allfor afuller slateof socialpolicies that will both redistributehe burdenofcare workandreinvigorate ivic engagement.

The burgeoning literatureon the decline of civic engagement has been largely gen-der blind. The debate about the cause of its decline provides a rich example of theinvisibility of women and women's unpaid care work. Scholars and politiciansobserve that Americans have increasingly withdrawn from community organiza-tions, reduced their political activity, placed their individual self-interest over thecommon social good, and more generally failed to fulfill their citizenship obliga-tions, thus threatening our democracy (Elshtain 1999; Putnam 1995). Explanationsfor lackluster participation in civic activities vary, including women's increasingparticipation in paid labor, a declining public morality, and excessive reliance onwelfare programs (Galston and Levine 1998; Putnam 1996). Rarely can we findanything acknowledging how women's disproportionate responsibility for carework interferes with or enhances traditional forms of civic activity.' Rarer still isany mention of how care work, in and of itself, constitutes civic activity.Our aim here is to make gender central by infusing the civic engagement debatewith the results of decades of feminist research on paid labor and citizenship.AUTHORS'NOTE:Our thanks o SuzanneMettlerand Jill Quadagnofortheir commentsandsugges-tions on earlierdrafts.REPRINTREQUESTS:PamelaHerd,109 Observatory,SPH-IIM2242, Universityof Michigan,AnnArbor,MI,48109-2029.GENDER& SOCIETY,Vol. 16 No. 5, October2002 665-688DOI: 10.1177/089124302236991? 2002 Sociologists for Women n Society

665

8/3/2019 Pamela Herd Care Work

3/25

666 GENDER & SOCIETY / October 2002

Feministsexploretheexperiencesandmeaningsof unpaidcare andplace genderatthe center of the debate.In responseto those who might suggestthat care workisnot a form of civic engagementbecause it occurs within a privatefamily sphererather hana morepublicpolitical sphere,we suggestthat hepublic-private ichot-omy is challengedby civic engagementscholars hemselves who argue hefamilyis a key partof civil society. Civic engagementscholarsarguethatfamilies, likecivic engagement,are criticalto ahealthydemocracy.Here,we lay the theoreticalgroundworko incorporateheunpaidcareworkprovidedwithinfamilies into stan-darddefinitionsof civic engagement.We also argue ordevelopinga fuller slateofwelfarestateprograms o facilitatecare work andcivic engagement.Incontrast othosewho suggestthatstrong ederalpolicies inhibitcivic activity,we suggestthatpolicies thathelpfamilies balancepaidandunpaidresponsibilitieswill encourageand revitalizecivic engagement Mettler 1999).Ourconcern s less withwhy par-ticipation n civic life has declined over time andmore with theextent to which theconcepthas been defined n awaythat ails torecognizecare workas thewaymanywomen and some men meet theircitizenship obligations.Threedifferingtheoreticalframeworks-social capital,historical institution-alism,andmoralism-have informedrecentdebatesabout he causes and solutionsof declining civic engagement (Skocpol and Fiorina 1999).2These theoreticalapproachesdisagreeabouteverythingfrom the definition of civic activityto theinfluence of welfare states on civic engagement.Nonetheless, one thing thesescholarshave n common s that heymostlyignorewomen's carework.Incontrast,feministshave long focused on the importanceof unpaidcare work for bothpaidlabor and social citizenship(Acker 1988, 1990; Knijnand Kremer1997; Lister1997). Insightsfromthis feminist literature ave notinfluencedrecentanalysesofcivic engagementin the United States.Civic engagementscholarsappearto bemore interested n the spacesin which care work is performed, uchas traditionalfamilies andvoluntaryorganizations, hanin the care work itself.We attemptto address this inattention o gender and care work in the civicengagementdebateby considering mportantheoreticalandpolicy issues relatedto care. Feminist scholarshave demonstrated hat careis workand that care workshouldbe both arightandanobligationof socialcitizenship.We infusegender ntothe civic engagementdebateby arguing hatcarework,definedas thedaily physicalandemotional aborof feedingandnurturingitizens,is an activeformof participa-tory citizenship with far-reachingcivic benefits. Our argumenthas three parts.First, we detail the three perspectives, social capital, moralism, and historicalinstitutionalism,hathaveinformedmuchof thecivic engagementdebateto date.Then,we explorethepart hatcare workplaysin civic engagement,drawingon thefeminist literature hatanalyzeslaborandcitizenship ssues in thecontextof care.Finally,we explorethecapacityof welfare statepolicies to facilitatecivic engage-mentby redistributinghe burdenof care work.

8/3/2019 Pamela Herd Care Work

4/25

Herd, Harrington Meyer / CARE WORK 667

THREE ACCOUNTS OFTHE DECLINE OF CIVIC ENGAGEMENTArgumentsaboutthe causes of decline in civic engagement,andconsequentlytheremediesforit, aregrounded n a multidimensionaldebateabouttherightsandresponsibilitiesof citizenship (Mettler 1999). Legal citizenshiprefers to actualmembership n a nation state. Incorporationreferences the civil, political, andsocial rightsthatallow individuals o actuallybe a partof the largerpoliticalcom-munity.These threerightsareintertwinedanddependenton each other(Marshall1950). The concept of civil rightsis exemplifiedin the Civil RightsAct of 1964alongwithall of its amendments.Politicalrightsincludetheabilityto vote for and

participate n elected office. Social rights are citizens' entitlement to the basicnecessities of economicsecurityandsocialwell-being(Marshall1950).Bothlegal-ization andincorporationocus on theconceptof rights.Incontrast,participatorycitizenshiprefers o theobligationsentailed nindividuals'participationnpoliticaland civic life.The debateabout hedeclineincivic engagement s limitedtoparticipatoryiti-zenship.Empirically, he decline has been well documented.The debate is aboutthe causes of and remedies to the decline. Participationn voting,religiousactivi-ties, and many voluntaryassociationsis down (Galstonand Levine 1998; Wolfe1989). This conversationabout the decline in civic engagement ed to a renewedinterest nwhatconstitutesandfacilitatescivic engagement.Weshare heconcernsabouthow civic activityshouldbe conceptualizedandrevitalizedand seek to shedsome feministinsighton the subject.Thereare three accounts of the decline in civic engagement.Social capitalistsdefine civic activityprimarilyby participationn organizedand informalgroupssuch as the League of WomenVoters,the Elks, the Parent-TeacherAssociation,unions,local soccerleagues,orbird-watching lubs.Theynote thatmembershipnthese organizationshas been on the decline since the 1960s (Putnam1995, 1996;Wolfe 1989). This decline in civic activities is problematicbecause it leads to adecline in socialcapital.Socialcapital"refers o connectionsamongindividuals-socialnetworksand normsof reciprocityandtrustworthinesshatarise fromthem"(Putnam2000, 19). These theorists attribute he decreasein civic participationodeclines n social trustand ncreases nresidentialmobility,paidwork,single-parentfamilies, government nvolvement,television consumption,andgenerationaldif-ferences(Galston1996;Galstonand Levine 1998;Putnam1995, 1996,2000). Par-ticipation n suchgroups s important, ocial capitalistsargue,because the groupsareindependentof the state andtheyfostera sense of community, ocial trust,andstrongparticipatory emocracy Brehmand Rahn1997;Putnam1993).Theythinkinterventionsby the federalgovernment,particularly op-downpolicies, shouldbeavoidedbecauseof theirpotential o discourageparticipationncivic organizations(Putnam2000). Moremoderatesocial capitalisttheoristssupportgovernmentaid

8/3/2019 Pamela Herd Care Work

5/25

668 GENDER SOCIETYOctober002

to fosterlocal, grassrootscitizens'initiatives o correctsocialproblemsbutremainleeryof largefederalpolicies (Putnam2000). Moreover, hey rarelyargue hatfed-eralpolicies can enhancecivic engagement.PresidentBush'sproposalto expandfederalfundingfor faith-basedorganizations o providesocial services is a goodexampleof thisrestrained upportof welfare state involvement.Moralistsdefinecivic activityasparticipationn the institutionsof civil society,which canvaryfromthe familyto voluntaryorganizationsand artsorganizations.The focus on morality s theprimarydistinguishing eaturebetweensocial capital-ists and moralists.Moralists, such as Elshtain (1999) and Galston and Levine(1998), trace the decline in civic engagementto a moral meltdownin Americansociety.While social capitalistssuchas Putnam 2000) are worriedabouta declinein social capital,moralistsare morefocused on a decline in morality.Theprimaryevidence of poor publicmorality s the deterioration f the family, by which theymean the decline in the traditional amily structure.Moralistsplace particularimportanceon the family as the cradleof citizenship-although their concernislimited to the form of families and not to the work that occurs within families(Elshtain1999).From hesescholars'perspectives,marriagesmakefamilies.Thus,rising rates of divorce, single parenthood,and cohabitation are threatening odestroycivil society (Elshtain1999; Galstonand Levine 1998). Social capitalistand moralist theorists differ on the importanceof social movements in civicengagement.The moralistdefinitionof civic activityprecludes nformalparticipa-tion, and even participationn social movements s not regardedas civic activity.Elshtain 1998, 4) wrote,"Buildingandsustainingdecent nstitutionss at theheartof the matter.And movement politics]don'tdothat-don't build hose ties of trust,reciprocity,accountability, nd mutualself helpovertime."Instead,schools,busi-nesses, labororganizations,and traditional amilies are the key institutionsthatbuild moralties in a civil society.Politicianshaveembraced his moralist heoreti-cal frameworkby dismantlingprograms uch as Aid to Familieswith DependentChildren.Moralistsarguethis is importantbecause the 1960s GreatSociety poli-cies sparked he decline in civic engagementand havemagnifiedoursocial prob-lemsby encouragingdependenceonthe state(Mead1986).According othem,theanswer to civic decline is to improvepublic morality by maintaining raditionalfamilies rather hancreatingnew public policies.Historicalinstitutionalist heoristshave a broaderconceptualizationof whatconstitutescivic activity.Theysuggestthatwhile traditionalorms of civic engage-mentmayhavedeclined,other ormshaverisen totaketheirplace.Sincethe 1960s,traditional ormsof politicalandvoluntaryparticipationhave diminishedas elitescholars and businesspeoplecommit their energies to lobbying groups, profes-sionalorganizations, ndgettingahead ntheworkplacerather han o the commu-nity (Skocpol 1999). In contrast o the social capitalists'view that local voluntaryorganizationsare disconnectedfrom-and provide the antidote to-the federalgovernment,historical nstitutionalistsarguethat social movementorganizationsand local andregionalvoluntaryassociationshave always workedhandin handwith various levels of governmentto either demand or help implement social

8/3/2019 Pamela Herd Care Work

6/25

Herd, Harrington Meyer / CARE WORK 669

policies (Clemens 1999;Skocpol 1996, 1999;Skocpol,Ganz,and Munson2000).Insteadof viewing organizationsas places that fostergrouptrustandcooperation,historical nstitutionalists mphasize heirroleinproducing onflict andaspoliticalleverage (Clemens 1999; Crawfordand Levitt 1999; Skocpol 1996). They arguethat Americandemocracywas bornout of distrust and conflict and most of themajorsocial gains,fromchild labor aws to desegregation,haveresulted rom dis-cord.TheSouthernChristianLeadershipConferenceprovidesanexampleof avol-untaryassociationthatactively pursuedsocial, political,andlegal rightsfor Afri-can Americans.Historicalinstitutionalists,such as Theda Skocpol (1996), paycloser attention o the role inequalityplays in the declineof civic engagement.Shepointedout thatelite Americanshave withdrawnrom ocalorganizationsopartic-ipate in think tanks andadvocacy groupsremoved frompoor andworking-classAmericans,thusweakeningassociational ife and ties across all economic strata.Historical nstitutionalists remorecomfortablewith thegovernment's ole in civicengagementand at times arguefor incrementalgovernmentalsupport. Skocpol(1996) argued hattheUnited Stateshas arelativelyweakcentralgovernmentand,as such,wouldbe hard-pressedo interfere ubstantiallywithparticipationn civicassociations.Mettler 1999) went evenfurther, rguing hatuniversal ocial welfarepolicies may fostercivic engagement.In framingdebates about the causes of and solutions for the decline in civicactivity,social capitalists,moralists,and historical nstitutionalistshave looked atnearlyeverykindof unpaidactivity-including voting, tutoring, und-raising,andeven bowling. Notablyabsentfrom their definitions of civic activityis carework,thedailytasksrelated oraisingandcaring or citizens. Carework s generallyover-looked in these threetheoreticalperspectivesbecausetheyare derived rompoliti-cal traditions hatdefine citizens as male breadwinnersand voters who are sus-tainedby the women who cared orthemandtheirchildren, hefuturegenerationofcitizens (Heres 1987; Lister 1997). Social capital, moralist, and historicalinstitutionalist pproacheshavelargely ailed to takethepowerof genderas a socialforce seriously.We drawon feministanalysesthatredefinepaidlabor and citizen-shipin the contextof carework to redefine civic engagementand its prerequisites(Acker1988, 1990;Knijnand Kremer1997;Lister1997).Weargue hatcaringforspouses, children,the disabled, and the elderly has paradoxicaleffects on civicengagement.Careworkbothlimits andenhances raditional orms of civic engage-ment.Furthermore,we arguethatunpaidcarework,in and of itself, constitutesavital form of civic activity.Thus,we makegendercentralto the debate about thecauses of and solutions for the decline in civic engagement.

UNPAID CARE WORK AS AN OBSTACLECarework s oftenthe mostsatisfyingworkthatmanywomen and some men doduringtheir lifetimes. But thereis no questionthatit usurpscareproviders' ime,money,health,andotherresources.Thus,it often interfereswith traditional ivic

8/3/2019 Pamela Herd Care Work

7/25

670 GENDER & SOCIETY / October 2002

activities.Afterall, thereareonly 24 hours ntheday.Forwomen,moreso than ormen,unpaidcarework eavesless timeandfewer financialresources orparticipat-ing in politics, social movements,civic or voluntarygroups,or other traditionalforms of civic activity.Social capitalists,historical nstitutionalists,and moralistspaylittledirectattention o the roleunpaidcare workplaysin inhibiting raditionalformsof civic participation. ocial capitalistsacknowledge hatmothering,whichremovesmanywomen fromthepaidlabor orce,canlead to social isolation,whichin turnnegativelyaffects civic participation.But they do not make the directlinkbetweenperforminghe workof caringandhaving ittletime left formembershipnorganizationsPutnam2000). Historical nstitutionalists ndmoralistshave had it-tle to saywithregard o howunpaidcareworkcouldlimit civic engagement.3Herewe rely on feministanalysesto linkcarework and civic engagement.Decades of previousfeministanalyseshave shown that women shouldera dis-proportionate esponsibility or unpaidcarework,limitingtheiremploymentandcitizenship.Womenperform he majorityof unpaidcare work within families forchildren, people with disabilities, and the elderly (Cancian and Oliker 2000;Hochschild1989;HooymanandGonyea 1995).Forexample,80 percentof long-termcare for the elderly andpeople with disabilitiesis providedwithinfamilies,and75 percentof that is doneby women (HooymanandGonyea 1995). Scholarsinterested n citizenshiphaveemphasizedhow women'scaring nterfereswiththecitizenshipright oparticipatenpaid abor,which in turn eads to loss of theirbasicsocial rightsas citizens due to economic vulnerability Knijnand Kremer1997;Lister 1997; Mink 1998). Others have pointed out how this disproportionateresponsibilityfor unpaidcare work limits women's political participationandpower(Heres 1987;Lister1997).Disproportionate esponsibility or unpaidcarework,particularlywhen com-binedwithpaidworkresponsibilities,often limits thetime womenhave to partici-pate in traditional ivic activities.Mothersspendabout36 hoursperweek doinghousehold abor,while fathersspend16 hoursperweek (VoydanoffandDonnelly1999). A marriedwoman, with children,workingfull-time can expect to see areductionof 50 percent n hervolunteering Putnam2000). Moreover, he substan-tial increase n white women'slabor orceparticipation-even whentheyaremoth-ersof youngchildren-further teststheirabilityto findtime to participaten tradi-tional civic activities (Rubin 1994). Paid work, particularlywork done out offinancial need as opposedto choice, negativelyaffectsparticipationn traditionalcivic activities.Americansare in the paid laborforce 163 hoursper year,or theequivalentof anextramonthannually,morethan heywere in 1963(Leete-GuyandSchor1993).Among developednations, he UnitedStateshas thehighestpercent-age of labor force participantsworking50 or more hoursper week (Hochschild1997;Leete-GuyandSchor1993).Furthermore,acation ime,sickleave,andpaidabsences,already ess thanin most Europeancountries,have decreasedfor manyAmericanworkers Leete-Guyand Schor1993).Theconsequent ime demandsonfamily life limit citizens'potentialtojoin the local school boardor volunteeron apolitical campaign.

8/3/2019 Pamela Herd Care Work

8/25

Herd, Harrington Meyer / CARE WORK 671

The evidence is quiteclear that imited economicresourceshinderparticipationin traditional ivic activities(Bums, LehmanSchlozman,and Verba2001; Verba,LehmanSchlozman,and Brady 1995). Women'sdisproportionate esponsibilityfor unpaidcare work limits earningsand demandsresources, thereby reducingwomen's civic engagement.Mothersearnless because they work less thanbothmen and nonmothers.Buteven mothersworkingfull-time havelowerwages thanmen andwomenwithoutchildren, n partdue to the time demandsassociatedwithcaring for children(Harknessand Waldfogel 1999). Limited or part-timeworkpresentsits own economic problemsfor women providingcare work. Part-timework s less likelyto come with benefits such ashealth nsuranceandpensionbene-fits. Marriageoften protectswomen fromthe economic impactof carework,butwhen marriagesdissolve, whether due to death or divorce, women's economicresourcesoften dropdramatically ven thoughtheir care workresponsibilitiesdonot (HoldenandSmock 1991). Yearsspentoutof, or withlimitedparticipationn,the labor force interferewith savings andinvestments,as well as privatepensionand social security benefits. Ultimately, the higher poverty rate among olderwomen,which is notexpectedtochangefor thebabyboomergeneration, s duetoalifetime of unpaidcarework(Smeeding,Estes,and Glasse 1999).Althoughmanyhave been optimisticaboutthe baby boomers'potentialfor civic activityduringretirement,povertyand its stresses limit citizens' civic potential.

The demandsof careandpaidwork threatenwomen's health andconsequentlytheirabilityto be active citizens. Careworkersoftenhavepoorerphysicalandmen-talhealth han heirpeers(NationalAlliance forCaregiving1997).Mothersprovid-ing full-timeunpaidcarework,alongwith womenwho havedisproportionate ur-dens of householdlabor,have high levels of stress anddepression(Adam 1999;Bird 1999). In addition,studies show thatcaregivers or the developmentallydis-abledand the elderlyhave poorer self-reportedhealth,including higherlevels ofdepression,exhaustion, ack of exercise andhigherrates of chronic illnesses anddrug misuse (Brody 1990; Hoyert and Seltzer 1992). Being sick, tired, anddepressed tiflespeople'sabilityto focus onanythingother han heirmost immedi-ateresponsibilities.Justas careworkhas limited women'sabilityto be fully engagedasemployees,it haslimited theircapacityas citizens.Some mightquibblewiththeargument hatthetime demandsassociatedwithcarework imitone'sabilitytoparticipatencivicactivitiesbecause of evidence thatbusy people actuallyparticipatemore (Bums,LehmanSchlozman,and Verba2001; Freeman1996). But there is evidence thatcare workpressures, nparticular alancingpaidandunpaidwork,havetaken heirtoll on civic engagement(Putnam2000). However,we are not suggestingthat theimpactof care workoncivic activity s the same for allwomen.Indeed,carework soften outsourcedto paid nurses,nannies,housekeepers,cooks, and laundryser-vices, reinforcingrace andclass inequitiesamongwomen.Rather,we aresuggest-ingthat or women whoperform hecareworkthemselves,beingtoobusy, oopoor,and too drainedby care work may interferewith their traditionalcivic activity.These drains are invisible in the gender-blindaccounts of the decline in civic

8/3/2019 Pamela Herd Care Work

9/25

672 GENDER & SOCIETY / October 2002

engagement-or, if theyarevisible, analystsblame women's lack of moralvaluesinsteadof analyzing hegenderdynamicsof civic participation srevealed hroughcare work.

CARE WORK AS A CATALYSTAs theprevioussectionoutlined,carework such ascleaning, cooking,andbath-

ing can limit women's abilityto participate n traditional ivic activities,such asvoting, going to Parent-TeacherAssociation meetings, and volunteeringfor theRed Cross. In this section, we show how cleaning, cooking, and bathing canenhance or facilitate increased involvement in traditionalcivic activity for carerecipientsandcareprovidersalike.Somecivic engagement cholarshaveacknowl-edgedthefamily'srole in precipitating ivic engagement,but their focus has beenon the family as an abstract ocial institution.4Our focus is on the care workpro-vided within families. We emphasizehow care work has bolstered civic engage-mentamongcarerecipientsandhow carework has inspired nvolvement n tradi-tional formsof civic activity amongsome careproviders.Inmuch the sameway thatwomen'scookingandcleaningenabledmen to par-ticipate more fully in the labor market(Acker 1990; Delphy 1976; Molyneux1979),women'scookingandcleaninghas enabledmen to participate scitizensincivic engagementactivities. While families arenot invisible to civic engagementscholars,the care work that women performwithin families is invisible in thisdebate.Forexample,while Putnam 2000) addressed heimportance f familydin-nersin fosteringsocial capital,he neveracknowledged hefactthatsomeone mustshop, cook, andeventuallyclean up after the meal. This kind of care work,per-formedmostly by women,haslong provided henecessarysupport or other amilymembersto maximize their own civic engagement.Families provide the basicnecessitiesrequiredodevelop,andexercise,therightsanddemandsof citizenship.Mothersoftenstayhomecookingdinnerandhelpingthe childrenwith theirhome-work,while fathers, reshlyfed anddressed,attend own financemeetings.Whenmothersdo take on politicalduties,such as attendinga hearingabouta local gar-bageincinerator,heyoften do so with children n tow.Moreover,when childrenareable to participate n volunteeractivitiesthrough heir schools and on their owntime,theydo so only because theirmothers,andoccasionallytheirfathers,shuttlethem to and from these activities.Careworkoftenactivates hose who hadbeenpreviouslypolitically nactivecit-izens, expanding heir boundariesbecause of the caretheyprovidefor their fami-lies. Infact, feministanalysesof citizenshiphave madeit clear thatwomen'scareworkoftenstimulateswomen'spolitical activity(Gordon1994;Lister1997;Mink1995;Skocpol1992).By notaddressingorexaminingunpaidcare work andhow itaffects civic engagement, hepresent-daydebateaboutcivic engagement s incom-plete. In a limitedmanner, ocial capitalistsand moralistshave notedthe family'srole in precipitatingcivic engagement.Social capitalistshave shown how being

8/3/2019 Pamela Herd Care Work

10/25

Herd, Harrington Meyer / CARE WORK 673

marriedandbeing a parentare correlatedwith increasedparticipationn school-,youth-,andreligious-relatedactivities andacknowledged he family as a form ofsocial capital(Putnam2000). And moralistshave noted how the family is thepri-mary place where civic virtue andmoralityare developed(Elshtain 1982b). Butthese scholars have not addressedhow it is that carework,as opposedto certainfamily forms, precipitatescivic engagement.Moralists remain fixated on familystructureas opposedto the care work.Similarly,social capitalists gnorethe factthat t is notbeingaparent hat eads to Parent-Teacher ssociationparticipation;tis theparentingor the activework of caringthat eads to involvement n children'sschools. In the sameway thatthe focus on paidwork in poorcommunities gnoresthepracticeof unpaidcare,the focus onfamilystructure t theexpenseof care workmisspecifies the gender dynamicsof key mechanismsof civic engagement.Despitethe demandson time andresources trepresents, aisingchildrenorcar-ing for the disabled oftenpromptspoliticalactivitythatgoes well beyondbeing agood careprovider.Women activistsin the toxic waste movement often attributetheir participation o their responsibilityfor their family's health (Herda-Rapp2000). Infact, this is a commonexplanation or women involvedin mostenviron-mental movements:Good moms wantgood air andgood water for their children(Hofrichter1993).OnestudyshowedhowMexicanAmericanmothers n East LosAngeles joined forces to stop the buildingof a prisonin theircommunity.They"transformed etworksand resources based on family and cultureinto politicalassets to defendthe qualityof urban ife" (Pardo1998, 259). Activismpromptedanotherbenefit for these women; it enhanced theirpolitical awareness,a majorobjectiveof civic engagement n a democracy Krauss 1993).Some might suggestthatprotestingan incineratoror rallyingfor more soccer fields is a form of carework. However,we suggest thatparticipation n these traditional orms of civicengagement nterfereswith the provisionof care work such as cleaning, cooking,andbathing.Afterall, someone has to takecareof the childrenwhile mothersattendprotestsandrallies. Infact,there s evidencethatsomewomenuse theiractivismtoescape domesticresponsibilities.Maternalistsat the turnof thecenturyused theiradvocacy work for children and families to pursue political power and createcareers (Gordon 1994). And many present-daywomen toxic-waste advocatesbecame awareof theirdisproportionateesponsibility orunpaidcare,andthenega-tive implicationsof it in theirlives, through heir activism(Herda-Rapp 000).

CARE WORK AS CIVIC ENGAGEMENTIn the two previoussections, we demonstratedhow care workinterfereswith,and at othertimes facilitates,traditional orms of civic activity.Inthis section,ouraim is to redefinecivic engagementto includeunpaidcare workprovidedwithinfamilies.Whilemost civic engagementscholarsrecognizepolitical activity, uch asparticipatingn the Parent-Teacher ssociation,ascivic engagement, heyhavenotdefined more traditional ypes of unpaidcare providedwithin families as civic

8/3/2019 Pamela Herd Care Work

11/25

674 GENDER & SOCIETY / October 2002

engagement.5 nboththe labor marketand the welfare statecitizenship iterature,carewasunacknowledgeduntilfeministsbrought t to the forefrontandmadeargu-ments for the value of care.6Here, we bringcare work to the forefrontof civicengagementdebatesby making he case forwhy unpaidcareprovidedwithin fami-lies shouldbe considereda form of civic action.Tobedefinedas a formof civic engagement,civic activitymustbevoluntary ndaltruisticin nature,while simultaneously nurturingreciprocity,social ties, andsocial trust Putnam2000). Moreover, t mustbe unpaidandonly indirectlyrelatedto the state.Thus, these activities will improvethe health of a democracy.Whatcould possibly fit these definitionalrequirements etterthancare work? We sug-gest thattheunpaidcareworkprovidedwithinfamilies,like othertraditional ivicactivities, fosters the attributesof democraticcitizens. While maternalists n theearlytwentiethcenturymade a similarargument,we areby no meansadvancingtheirpositionhere. Maternalistsargued hat women had inherentnurturing killsthatmade theircitizenshipobligationsdifferent rom men's but stillimportant.Wearecomingatthis issue from a social constructionist antagepointon care.Womenare not naturallynurturing, nd social policies should not be constructed o forcethem into providingcare, even if it compensatesthem well for it. While civicengagement heoristshave neverspecificallyexcludedcareworkfrom theirdefini-tions of civic activity,neitherhavetheyever ncluded t.Thus,thedebate nthis sec-tion is a shadow debate. We infer how scholars ustify the exclusionof care workwithin families as civic engagementbecause they do not justify it themselves.Indeed,partof thewaywejustifythe inclusionof carework s to rule out rationalesforwhy it shouldbe excluded.Ultimately,we argue hatcivic engagementscholarshavealready aidthegroundworkorincludingcare as civic engagement.Not onlydoes care work meet the guidelines of what defines a civic activity,but civicengagementscholars have includedthe family in both civil society andkey mea-suresof the civic engagement hatoccurswithinthatcivil society.Thus,theycannotmake he theoretical tand hat heyareexcludingunpaidcareworkprovidedwithinfamilies because the family is private.Civic engagementscholarsacknowledgeunpaidcare work that occurs outsideof families but s still withincivil society.Voluntary rganizations uch ashospicesandthe Red Crossprovide he exact same services that amiliesprovide: ood, shel-ter,medicalcare,transportation,nda shoulder ocryon. Butunpaidcareworkper-formedby familymembers s generallynotrecognizedas a form of civic engage-ment,while nearlyall of the same tasksperformedby anyonebutfamilymembersareregardedas forms of civic activity.A womanspendinghours at her mother-in-law's bedside is a dutiful daughter-in-law,while a strangeror neighbor sittingbeside the samebed is ahospicevolunteer.Hospiceandrespitecareprovidersoftenprovidethe care work that some families do not have the time, money, or otherresources o provide.Howcanwe argue hatahospicevolunteercaring or aneigh-bor is engagedin a civic activity,while a womancaringforherelderlyaunt s not?Regardlessof wherethe careworkis providedand who providesit, the work,the

8/3/2019 Pamela Herd Care Work

12/25

Herd, Harrington Meyer / CARE WORK 675

emotional and financialcosts to the care provider-and the rewards or the carerecipientand the society at large-are the same.Weargue hatunpaidcare work within families is as voluntaryor as altruisticasother forms of civic engagement.Care workis gendered,and tremendoussocialpressurespushwomen to perform t (HarringtonMeyer2000). Butpeoplecananddo walkawayfromit-they decide not to care. Forexample,women's dispropor-tionateresponsibility or providingcare for children,bothin andoutside of mar-riage, means thatmanyfathershave decided not to takeon these tasks (Arendell1996;Hochschild 1989). Declining rates of fertility throughout he industrializedworldsignal manymen's and women's decisions that thepriceof careis too high(Esping-Andersen1999). Forbothmen andwomen, the decision to care or not tocare is made within a social contextshapedby the intersectionof gender,race,andclass (HarringtonMeyer2000), butby andlarge,women continuedisproportion-atelyto providecare,despitetheenormouscosts theypayto do it. Weargue his isjust asaltruistic, f not more altruisticbecause of thehighercosts associatedwithit,as unpaid care work provided by hospice or respite services. Providing care,whether n a paidorunpaidsetting,whether n a family orhospice setting, bringsemotionalrewards hat arepartof the motivating actorfor individuals o performthis work in the first place. Ultimately,we arguethatunpaidcare work is neverentirelyvoluntaryor altruistic.But we suggest that other forms of civic engage-ment, bowling or fund-raising,are also never entirely voluntary or altruistic(Putnam2000). Perhapsno form of humanaction is entirelyselfless oraltruistic nnature.While voluntaryand altruisticare two importantdescriptorsof civic activity,fosteringsocial andreciprocal ies betweenindividuals s arguably he mostimpor-tantoutcome of civic engagement,particularlyorsocialcapitalists Putnam1995,1996, 2000). One mighteven inferfrom social capitaliststhat the whole pointofvolunteering s to expand particularistic amily ties anddevelop social trust.Butwhile civic engagementscholars,notablysocial capitalists,have focused heavilyon how the developmentof ties between families and the larger communityisimportant, hey pay less attention o the workthat mustgo on withinfamilies fortheseexpanded ies andtrust o germinate.Studiesby socialpsychologistsfind thatchildrendevelop the ability to trustonly if they can count on having their basicneeds met, such as being fed and clothed (Holmes 1995). Perceptionsof beingcared for emotionally also have been found to be a strong componentof trust(Peters,Covello, and McCallum1997).And thedevelopmentof trustwithinfami-lies is correlatedwith a more generalizedtrust of others, similar to social trust(Couch,Adams,and Jones 1996;Couch and Jones 1997).

Furthermore, earlyall unpaidfamily care work involves a dizzying degreeofreciprocity between extended family members, neighbors, and friends. Manyscholars have documentedhow neighborsand extendedfamily rely on informalcareexchangenetworks Edinand Lein 1997;Oliker2000). A motherpicksupherneighbor'schildren,alongwith herown, from school or sportspractices,knowing

8/3/2019 Pamela Herd Care Work

13/25

676 GENDER & SOCIETY / October 2002

thatin exchange she can count on her neighborto oversee both of theirchildrenplayingin the drivewaya couple of afternoonsperweek. A neighbortakes out anolder woman'sgarbageeveryThursdaymorning o thatherdaughterdoesnot haveto make a special trip.Thus,unpaidcare providedwithin families overlapswithunpaidcareprovided n otherfamilies. Both within and betweenfamilies,recipro-cal ties formas a result.The finalway civic engagementscholars ay thegroundworkorcalling familycare civic engagement s the attention hey pay to the family in civic life. Thesescholars are not excluding family care work because of a consistent theoreticalargumenthat amiliesareprivate.Theexclusionof carefromthe civic engagementdebate s theoretically nconsistentconsidering he attention hey payto thefamilyin civic life. While there s ahistoricalbasisforexcluding hefamilyfromcivil soci-ety inpoliticaltheory, hisis notthecaseinthepresent-day ivic engagement itera-ture.Forexample,civic engagementscholarshave includedfamilyas partof civilsociety.Elshtain 1996, 1999)clearlysees thefamilyas a vitalpieceof civil society,listingitasthefirstof 13 institutions hatdefine a civil society(see also Himmelfarb1998;Wolfe 1998).7The activitiesthatgo on withintheinstitutionsof civil society,whichincludes thefamily,arecivic engagement.Thus,familycare workshouldbeconsideredas such.Moreover,Putnam 1995, 73) claimed thatfamilyis the most"fundamental orm of social capital."For social capitalists, the point of civicengagementin civil society is to improvesocial capital,which then leads to animproveddemocracy.Putnamnever made the obvious argument,which would beto conclude thatcareworkprovidedby these families is civic engagementbecauseit producessocial capital.Unfortunately, ivic engagementscholars'discussion of the familyhas mostlyfocusedon its form,as opposedto the work thatgoes on within it. In the process,they have demonized countless women who provideenormous amounts of carework but do it outsideof marriage.Moralists, nparticular, ave beenquickto linkthe declineincivicengagement o thedisintegratingamily(Elshtain1999;GalstonandBennett1999).Elshtain(1999) pointedto a woman'sdecidingto have a babywithoutgettingmarried s evidenceof themoraldeclinethatpervadescivil society.GalstonandBennett(1999) included hefamilyas one of five measures o evaluateAmerica'scivic health,buttheyquantifiedt based ondivorceratesand llegitimatebirths.These scholarsdefined the family in termsof marriage,as opposedto thecare work involved in keeping a family together,be it a one-parent, wo-parent,grandparent, r same-sex family model.8Consequently, hese scholars are morefocusedon maintaining raditionalamilystructures ndregulatingwomen's livesas opposedto acknowledging he care work thatmostlywomenprovide.

Ourpointis that care work meets all the standards f other civic activities andthusshouldrightlybe called civic engagement. t is generallyvoluntaryandaltruis-tic, andit fosters social trustandreciprocity.Moreover, t occurswithinaninstitu-tion of civil society, the family. It is a tremendous rony that civic engagementscholarshave so specifically focused on the importanceof family in civil societyand its impacton civic engagementbut havemostly ignoredthe unpaidcare work

8/3/2019 Pamela Herd Care Work

14/25

Herd, Harrington Meyer / CARE WORK 677

providedwithinfamilies, largely by women, thatmaintains hose families.Whilecivic engagementscholars have been lamentingthe demise of civic engagementandattributing aryingportionsof the blame to the deterioration f thefamily,sin-gle mothers,marriedmothers,same-sex parents,grandparents, nd manyothershave beendoingwhattheyhavealwaysbeendoing,raisingandcaringfor citizens.We haveahard imeunderstandingwhy unpaidcare work withinfamilies hasgen-eratedso little attentionwithin thecivic engagementdebatewheneverything rombird-watching o bowlinghas merited he attentionof these scholars.Itsexclusionmakesclearthe limitedunderstanding f gender nequality nthecivic engagementliterature.

THE STATE'SROLE IN CIVIC ENGAGEMENTHow does thestate,particularlyhe welfarestate,affect civic engagement?Howshould welfarepolicies change if we includeunpaidcareas a civic activity?Therole of state policy in civil society is hotly contested among civic engagementscholars.Some see thewelfare state as ahindrance o civic engagement,while oth-erssee it asa support. nthissection,we articulatehese contestedpositionsandtheconsequencesof these views for women whoprovideunpaidcareworkwithinfam-

ilies. Moreover,we considerwhether ncludingunpaidcare work as civic engage-ment would alterthese scholars'views of the relationsbetween the state and civilsociety.Weconcludeby suggestingthateven if civic engagement cholars ncludedunpaidcaredirectly n theiranalyses,it would not lead to a full slate of social sup-portsaimed ateliminatinggender nequality.As anantidote,we articulate social-ist feminist vision of the state'srole in supporting vibrantandactive civil society.Weemphasize heimportance f analyzing ogether he socialrights,andparticipa-tory rights, and the obligations of citizenship (Lister 2000). By bringingthemtogether,we emphasizehow social rightsaffectparticipation ndconverselyhowparticipationaffects social rights(Lister2000; Siim 1993). Ultimately,we arguethatsupportingunpaidcare work as a civic activity,andattempting o redistributethe responsibilityfor it, can actually improvecivil society andconsequentlythecivic engagementthatoccurs within it by improvinghealthand income security,particularlyor marginalizedgroupsof citizens.Moralistsand socialcapitalistsoverlap n theirviews of theroleof government,andparticularlyhe federalgovernment, n fosteringan active civil society.Theirperspectivesare rooted in the idea that the state thatgovernsbest governs least.Consequently,both groupsare wary of large-scalefederalpolicies; they remainrooted in Toquevillian deas about the necessity of local organizations,separatefrom the government,in maintaininga strong, participatorydemocracy.Thus,while Elshtain (1982b, 449) derided corporateirresponsibilityand greed, sherefused"toembrace hestandardiberalagendaof moreprovisionof social servicesto ameliorate the destructiveeffects of a socially irresponsiblecorporatestruc-ture."9Most moralistsarguethat the only way civil society can be fixed is to fix it

8/3/2019 Pamela Herd Care Work

15/25

678 GENDER & SOCIETY / October 2002

from within."It s pasttimeto... focus once againonchurches,voluntaryassocia-tions,andgrassrootsgroups hatarerebuildingAmerica'scivil society,onefamily,oneblock,one neighborata time"(Schambra1998,23). Socialcapitalists,such asPutnam 2000), arewaryof largenational ocialpolicies, arguing hat he roleof thefederalgovernment houldbe as limitedaspossible.Hisproposedsolutionsto curbdecliningsocialcapital,which includebetterurbanplanning,moreparticipationnthe arts,and less TV,evidence this stance.So what do theirpositionson policy mean forunpaidcare workersandthegen-derinequalities hatcharacterize he distribution f this work?Themoraliststanceis best characterized ywhatfeministsoften refer oas a differenceapproach.Mor-alistsemphasizewomen'sunpaidcare work as naturally eminized. Fromthisper-spective,carework is an activitybest situatedwithin traditional amily structures(Fraser1994, 2000; Lister 2000). Thus, Elshtain(1990) is a proponentof one-earner, wo-parentamilies. But moralistsdo not see generous ederalwelfarepoli-cies as important o maintaining his breadwinnermodel. They look to either themarketorverylimitedpolicies thatreinforce raditionalamilystructures nd thuswomen's economicdependenceon men.Forexample,Elshtain(1982b) called forreintroduction f the family wage butchallenged supports or a nationalday carepolicy. Corporations hould ust submitto what is morallyright.But she does notassume the governmentneeds to or should interveneto make this happen.Ofcourse, the call for government ntervention nto the marketto impose a familywage,but not into thefamilyto createpublic daycare,is contradictoryn thiscase.Nonetheless,scholars ikeElshtainmake cleartheiropposition o anenlargedwel-fare state and their supportfor traditional amily structure.Moralists who seedivorceandsingle parenthood s a majorcontributor o the decline in civil societytend to support imitedpolicies thatmaintain raditionalamilystructures, rguing,for example,that no-faultdivorce laws should be rescinded(Galston 1996).Ultimately,moralistsexpect a very limited role for the federalgovernment nregards ounpaidcare workandmoregeneralwelfareneeds.They expectchurchesand small, local, grassrootsorganizations o fulfill welfare needs. Consequently,citizenswouldnot haveequalaccess to support ervices.Furthermore,hissystemdependson alreadyoverburdened olunteers,churches,andschools to create andthenhelprunthese services. Thisapproachdependson good will, andwe suggestthatgood will is not enough.Socialcapitalistsopposefederalpolicies thatsupportunpaidcare work n fami-lies, despite emphasizingthe need for families to help reinvigorate ivic activity.Putnam 2000) called for the developmentof youthcivic engagement.He arguedthat the way to improvecivic activity for the long term is to get children moreinvolved.Parents,mostoftenmothers,needto spendmoretimeshuttling heirchil-dren o after-schoolactivities,communityactivities,and othervoluntaryactivities.The socialcapitalistagenda,whichrests on arefusalto use governmentpolicies tosupportunpaidcarework,pushesthe burdensof unpaidcare work onto families,specificallywomen(Fraser1994; O'Connor,SholaOrloff,andShaver1999).Thelack of formal services is linked to "coercive"gender inequality (Zimmerman

8/3/2019 Pamela Herd Care Work

16/25

Herd, Harrington Meyer / CARE WORK 679

1993).When welfare statesfail to relieveexisting inequalities n thedistribution funpaidcarework,theyreinforce hose inequalities Hobson 1990).Both moralistsand socialcapitalistsarerooted n a liberal deologythatdemandsaweak statewithlimited federalpolicies. Consequently, ncluding unpaidcare workin their defini-tion of civic engagementwould havelittleimpacton theirview of therole of socialpolicybecausetheyalreadysee almostno rolefor federalpolicy in improvingcivicengagement.Moralists n particularbelieve thatgovernmentcan only harmcivicengagement,regardlessof the type.By contrast,historical nstitutionalists ee a largerrole for thegovernment, pe-cifically the federalgovernment, n improvingcivil society and civic engagement.They challenge the distinctionsbetween local organizationsand the governmentandclaim thatbig government annotbe blamedfor civic disengagement Skocpol1998). Some go as far as to arguethatuniversalpolicies can foster a stronger ivilsociety, dramatically ncreasing people's sense of civic responsibility.Mettler(1999) argued hat he GIBill, whichguaranteed college education or WorldWarIIveterans, osteredsocial trustandcivic responsibilityamongveterans.Historicalinstitutionalists ften note thegenderedcharacter f supposedlyuniversalbenefits(Mettler1999; Skocpol 1992). Nationalpolicies, such as universalpostsecondaryeducationor even universalhealthcare,wouldgive positive supports o thosepro-viding the bulk of unpaidcare. But historicalinstitutionalistshave generallynotcountedfamilycareworkas civic engagement.Thus,while the universalpolicieshistorical nstitutionalistsusually supportwould indirectly mprovethe conditionof familycarework,theywouldlikelynot ameliorategender nequalities n thepro-vision of unpaidcarework.Historical nstitutionalistsike Mettler(1999) empha-size how socialrights(i.e., theright o aneducation)can affectparticipatory bliga-tions (civic engagement).If historical institutionalistsacknowledgedthe unpaidcareworkprovidedwithinfamilies as a formof civic engagement, heywould comecloser to a social feminist view of the state'srole in fosteringcivic engagement.Unlike civic engagementscholars,feminist scholarshave attendedcarefullytohow women'sunpaidcare work hascontributed o women'sdependence,poverty,and exclusion from civic activities (Daly 2000; Knijnand Kremer1997; Mink1995, 1998).Womenwhoperform arework n welfare stateswith weak socialpol-icies tend to be poorerand to have less representationn elected offices (Esping-Andersen1999;Korpi2000; Siaroff2000). U.S. citizens do not haveaccess to uni-versalhealthcare,universalchild care,paidparental eave, or any otherways ofpackagingwelfarethatwouldhelpbalancepaidworkandcare workdemands.As aresult, herelativepovertyrate,which is thepercentageof personsbelow50 percentof median ncome, amongsingle mothers n theUnitedStatesis nearly60 percent(Korpi2000). In addition,women constitute ess than30 percentof Congress, 10percentof governors,and 25 percentof state egislatures n the UnitedStates(Cen-ter for AmericanWomenand Politics2000). Inthe UnitedStates,men withyoungchildrenare more likely thanwomen with young children to hold elected office(Dodson 1997).Moreover,womentend to enterpublicoffice later n life thanmendue to child careresponsibilities Dodson 1997). Womenin the United States are

8/3/2019 Pamela Herd Care Work

17/25

680 GENDER& SOCIETY October2002

not alone. FranceandGermanyhavegreatersupports han the United Statesdoesforwomen who providecarework,but the availablesupports end to pushwomenoutof, rather hanenable them to remain n, thelaborforce (Sainsbury1999).As aresult,relativepovertyratesforsingle mothers n FranceandGermanyare 20 and25 percent,respectively Korpi2000). Countries uch as FranceandGermany,withlow women'slabor orceparticipationates, endtohave ow electedrepresentationamongwomen (Siaroff2000). In 1998, France'sparliamentwas just 11 percentwomen,while Germany'swas less than30 percent Siaroff2000). Feministsarguethat or womentoparticipateullyinpaidwork,politics,andcivil society, theyneedto have a greaterchoice about whetherandhow muchto care (HarringtonMeyer2000).Most feminist scholarssee thestateashavingthepotential o spread he burdensof unpaidcare work andconsequently mprove heprovisionof it, thoughthere sdisagreementamongthemas to how this should be done so as to improvegenderequity (HarringtonMeyer 2000; Hobson 2000; Lister 1997; Sainsbury 1994;Zimmerman1993).As Fraser 1994) argued,achievinggenderequityis a difficulttaskbecause t is acomplexnotionfraughtwithinherent ontradictions hatmakeaclearpolicy solution difficultto achieve(see also Lewis 1992). Strikinga balancebetween the equalityversus differenceperspectives,thatis, treatingwomen likemen on one extremeandessentializingwomen's differenceson the otherextreme,

is ultimatelya difficult ask(Lister 1997,2000). Incallingcare workaformof civicengagement,we need to be carefulto value and redistributeunpaidcare work toundermine he traditional endereddivision of laborandenhancewomen'spartici-patorycitizenshipsimultaneously Lister2000). To thisend,we supportpublicpol-icies thatredistribute npaidcare worklargely providedby women. Such redistri-butionwouldimprove hequalityof and access to careand also increasewomen'sparticipationn the traditionalpolitical process.Afterall, womenin elected officearemorelikelythanmen tobe supportive f policies thatsupportunpaidcarework(Boles 1991;Dodson 1997;Thomas1994).Thegoal is to value careworkas civicengagementwhile simultaneouslyreducingthe burdenof carewomen shoulder.Wepointto the Scandinavianwelfarestatesasexamplesof welfareregimesthatsupportunpaidcare workandencouragecivic activityand thus promote genderequality.Scandinavian oliciesareheavily geared owardprovidingcitizens' socialrights.Theyemphasizeuniversalpolicies thatsupportwomen'sunpaidcareworkthroughincome and employmentsupportpolicies without enforcing their eco-nomicdependenceon men(Korpi2000;Leira1992;Sainsbury1999).Key policiesinclude universalhealthcare;universal ncome support;public day careservices,particularly or young children;paid maternityand paternity eave; and publichome healthservices for the disabledelderly.Thesepolicies allow womento main-tainindependenthouseholds andprovidecare without iving in desperatepovertyor being forced to be economically dependenton men (Orloff 1993; Sainsbury1999).Relativepovertyratesamongsinglemothers nNorwayand Sweden arethelowest in the world,at less than5 percent(Korpi2000).

8/3/2019 Pamela Herd Care Work

18/25

Herd, Harrington Meyer / CARE WORK 681

Generoushealth and income supportpolicies make the tasks associated withcaring easier and consequentlylead to better care. Unlike in the United States,Scandinavian ingle parentsare not forcedto choose betweenthe income securityof ajob andworrying hat their childrenarebeing inadequatelycaredfor, if at all(EdinandLein 1997). As Scheiwe (1994) argued,policies need to support"caretimes,"time spentout of paid labor to providecare, in the way thatthey supportperiodsof unemployment rdisability. nastudycomparing heexperiencesof par-ents caring for chronically ill children in the United States and Finland,Zimmerman(1993) showed how policies such as universal health insurance,income support,parentalsick leave, and formal care services allowed parentstofocus more on their sick childrenandless on healthcarebills and their obs. More-over,these countrieshave takenpolicy stepsto redistributeare workbetween menandwomen, thoughthese attemptshave been less successful (Lister2000).Policies that acilitatewomen's socialcitizenship,which redistribute arework,have had an enormousimpact on women's participation n the formalpoliticalsphere.The womenwholive inthese countriesarefarmore ikelyto haveequalrep-resentation n elected office (Siaroff2000). Abouthalf of Norway'sand Sweden'sparliamentsarecomposedof women.Nowhere else in the industrializedworld dowomen enjoy such high levels of participation n elected office. Womenhave apowerfulandrelativelyequalvoice inthese democracies.Thus,while scholarssuchas Leira(1992) pointto the continuedelusivenessof gender usticeeven in Scandi-navia, Scandinaviansocial policies effectively accomplish the explicit goal ofincreasinggenderequity-in both economic andpoliticalarenas.

DISCUSSIONThosewho debatethe causes andconsequencesof thedeclinein civic activitieshavefailed toaddress heimportance f genderas asocialforcethrough heirexclu-

sion of citizens'unpaidcarework ntheiranalyses.Thishasleft agapinghole inthedebate.In fact, all citizens need care at some pointin theirlives, be that in child-hood, sickness,or old age (HarringtonMeyer2000). By not addressingcareworkor legitimating ts integralrole in organizingsocial and individual ife, thepropo-nents of civic engagementwill fail to findmanyof the answersfor whichtheyarelooking.The following story, highlightedin many newspapers,emphasizesthe impor-tanceof includingunpaidcare work nanalysesof civic engagement. talso revealsthe delicatebalanceof providingcare workandbeing civically engaged na systemthat does not support ts care workers.A motherof a 10-year-oldwith severe dis-abilities hadboth caredfor her son and advocatedon his behalf sincethedayof hisbirth Magnus2000). Shehadfoughthard obringhimhomedespitethe fact thathecould neverwalk,speak,or care for himself inanyfashion.As he grew,she becameastrongadvocate orpeoplewithdisabilities,sittingongovernmentand ocal com-missions. She was a model of an actively engagedcitizen.

8/3/2019 Pamela Herd Care Work

19/25

682 GENDER & SOCIETY / October 2002

ThedayafterChristmasn 1999,however,she andherhusband efttheirsonin ahospital waitingroomwith his favoritetoys, instructionson how to carefor him,anda note saying they no longercould. While many people were appalled,otherparentsof children with disabilitiescame forward n theirdefense. One womanargued,Therebut orthegraceof GodgoI.Ihad ofight oget mychildrenntoschoolandthen ight oraccommodationsoget hem here.Wehave obecome octors.Wehavetobecomenurses.Wehave o becomeawyers. arentsnduphavingo become ob-byists ofight or servicesheyneed.Once heygetthem, ofight okeep hoseser-vices.I'vefoughtwitheveryonerom awmakersversupporterviceso landlordsoverdiaper eliveries. nd t istheaccumulationfthisday-to-dayssaulthat inallyonedayyousay,"I ustcan'tdo thisanymore."Magnus000)

Inthiscase, as inmanyothers,civic engagementaloneultimatelyproved utile;thelackof policysupportsor caresplitafamily apartanddiscouragesothers romcon-tinuingto fightfor their communitiesandtheirfamilies.We are of two minds aboutthe importanceof civic engagement.Weagreewithcivic engagementtheorists that civic activity is generally good. But too often,greatercivic engagement s intendedas a weak substitute or strongfederalpoli-cies. Conservativevoices see civic engagementas a panacea Coatsand Santorum1998).Relyingon civic engagementalone to secure thewell-beingof ourcitizens,however, s fundamentally recarious.A grassrootsapproach annotguaranteehatall citizenswill haveequalaccess to services.Itdependson alreadyoverburdenedvolunteers,churches,andschools toorganize,create,andthenhelprunsupport er-vices. Too often, civic groupsand civic actions aredeeplyrace,gender,and classbiased.It reinforcesa gendereddivision of labor thatsystematicallyexploits anddisadvantageswomen. The distributionof social and economic benefits throughcommunity- and religious-based organizationsresults in unequal access, withminoritygroupsoftenbeingshortchanged.tdependsongoodwill, andas thestoryabove illustrates,good will is not always enough.Real resources andthe federalgovernment'sorganizational apacityare needed to secureequalaccess to neces-saryservices for all citizens.Anotherconcern s thatsupporters ftenpromotecivic activitybecauseit is saidto fostersocialtrust;we valuesocialtrust,butwe also value social conflict. Wecon-cur with the historical nstitutionalists' mphasison theimportanceof discord n ademocracy Skocpol 1996). Socialprotestsand civil disobedience,which are inte-gral componentsof socialmovements, osteracertain evel of distrustand discord.Moreover, hey challengeauthority tructures,whichupsetsmoralistswho think agenerallack of obedience to authority s problematic n civil society. But wherewould women, of all races andethnicities,be without conflict and disobedience?The importance hese scholarsplace on social trust and obedienceto authority sproblematic orwomen and disenfranchised roupsmoregenerally.While we areonly attemptingochallengethe exclusionof careworkfrom the civic engagement

8/3/2019 Pamela Herd Care Work

20/25

Herd, Harrington Meyer / CARE WORK 683

debate, urther esearch houldexamine ssues such as the focusplacedonfosteringsocial trustandconsequently stifling discord.Social capital,historical nstitutional,and moralistperspectives ail to addressthe importanceof genderas a social force in the civic engagement iterature.Weaddress his limitationby identifyingtherole of care work in participatoryitizen-ship.Forwomen,inparticular, npaidcare workoftencompeteswithpaidworkforresourcessuch astime,money,andhealth.Cooking,cleaning,andcaringmaylimitparticipationn traditional ormsof civic activity.But by providingcitizens withfood,clothing, nurturing, ndshelter,careworkersalsofacilitatecivic involvementfromone generation othe next.In someinstances,careworkevenprodscitizens tobecomehighlypolitical; egions of women havejoined environmental nd disabil-ity reform movements because of their commitments to their childrenor frailelders.Incontrast o androcentric oliticaltheorists,we argue hatcare work s often,inandof itself,a fundamental ormof civic engagement. tmeetsallof thecriteria hatdefine otherforms of civic activity.It is generally voluntaryandaltruistic,whilefosteringreciprocityandtrust.Furthermore,manycivic engagement cholars ocuson theimportanceof thefamily.Thus,care work's exclusion from thedefinitionofcivic activity s not because t takesplacewithintheprivate amily.Theexclusionofunpaidcare is theoretically nconsistentgiventhe attentionpaidto familyinthe lit-erature.Forexample,moralistshave been quickto blamechangingfamily struc-tures oradeteriorating ivil society.Andfamilywascentral o the firstof Putnam's(2000) solutionsforimprovingcivic engagement.Heargued hatparentsneed to domore to activelyinvolve their children n civic activities.Careworkaffectsthehealthof civic life and s a fundamental omponentof par-ticipatorycitizenship.Welfareregimes thatsupport he rightto give andreceivecare enhanceparticipatory itizenshipandwelfarefor allcitizens.Althoughhistor-ical institutionalistshave addressedways in which welfare states may stimulatecivic engagement, heyhavenot addressedhow women's care workmightfit intothis. We arguethat a strongcentralizedwelfarestatecan relieve class andgenderinequitiesthat inhibitdemocraticparticipation.Althoughsome civic engagementthinkersarguethatstrongwelfare stateshindertraditional ivic engagement,evi-dence suggests that social programspendingcan enhance social trustand groupmembership,criticaloutcomes of civic engagement(Andersen1999). Universalprograms that spread the risks and costs of caring across all taxpayers canstrengtheneministgoals, social cohesion,andconsequentlycivic participation ymaking everyone responsiblefor an activityfrom which we all benefit.

NOTES1.Bums,LehmanSchlozman,andVerba 2001) did look at theimpactof women'sdisproportionateresponsibility ordomesticlaboron theirpolitical participation.However, heylooked atgenderdiffer-ences inparticipation sopposedtoconsideringhowunpaidcare(regardlessof whoperforms t,thoughit is mostly women)affects civic engagement.

8/3/2019 Pamela Herd Care Work

21/25

684 GENDER & SOCIETY / October 2002

2. SkocpolandFiorni's(1999) volume oncivic engagementalso includes a rational hoiceperspec-tive. As with other heories,rational hoicepayslittle attention o care work.We exclude rational hoicefrom our discussion becauseit has little place in the debate,compared o thewidespread nfluence ofsocial capitalandhistorical nstitutionalanalyses.3. It is importantto point out that historical institutionalistshave dealt extensively with thematernalistmovement,whichprovidesanexampleof wheremotheringprecipitateswomen's civic par-ticipation(Skocpol 1992). Similarly,moralistshave stressedhow certainfamily formsprovidemoralandemotional oundations or civic engagement.However,moralists gnorethegenderedworkandatti-tudes on which traditionalamiliesrest. We takeupboth of thesepointsin theCareWorkas a Catalystsection.

4. Historical nstitutionalists, articularlyThedaSkocpol,have documentedhowcare workprecipi-tatesparticipatoryitizenshipbytracing he activitiesof the maternalistmovement ntheearlytwentiethcentury. n spiteof this,theyhavenot addressedhow unpaidcare work affects civic engagement n thepresentday; nstead, heyhave focused ontacklingTocquevilliannotions of theneed fora sharp epara-tion between localizedparticipation nd a centralizedgovernment o maintaina participatory emoc-racy(Skocpol,Ganz,and Munson2000).5. Some scholars,particularlymoralists such as Elshtain(1998), do not think thatparticipatingnsocial movements houldbe consideredcivicengagement.Socialcapitalistsalso are sometimesuncom-fortablewith social movements f theyhurtsocial trust,which is an importantpartof social capital.6. Feminist iterature elating o the labormarkethasbeenableto show thatprovidingcare,bearingandraisingchildren,cooking, cleaning,andcaringfor theelderlyisjust as importanto society aspaidwork;it has simplybeen unremuneratedLaslettand Brenner1989;Mink 1995, 1998;Oakley 1974;Secombe1974).Thecitizenship iterature asalso validated he societalnecessityof careworkbyincor-poratingt into a definitionof citizenship hatviews careas a socialrightand n somecases a social obli-gation(HarringtonMeyer2000; Knijnand Kremer1997;Lister1997).7. Elshtain 1996, 1999),however,spokeof aromanticized isionof familylife that ikely only par-tiallymeetstherealityof people'severyday ives. Sheis quicktorecognizethenurturing spectsof carebut not the workof care.

8. Elshtain(1982a) has madea careeroutof bringing he family intopoliticalthoughtandtheory,emphasizingnurturance,ove, andmoralityasrepresentativef women'scontributionwithinthefamily.Simply put,she reminds eministsthatthe "new woman"shouldnot be the "old man."Herwritingsonthe civic engagementdebate, however,havemostly focused on the "decline"of the family ("illegiti-mate"births,divorceandso on)(Elshtain1996, 1999).Inthisdebate,sheemphasizeshowthedecline intraditionalamily formsundermines ivil society.9. Elshtain(1982a) has beencritical of the strictconceptualdivide betweenthepublicandprivatespherescharacteristic f liberalism.Womenand theirparticularalentsare notrepresentedntheliberaldemocraticmale citizen.A maternalistn thatshe hasargued hatwomenbringagenderedmoralauthor-itytopubliclife, sheremainsa classic liberal o the extentthatshe believesthestateshouldremain mallanddecentralized o governmentalpowerdoes not threatendemocracy.

REFERENCESAcker,Joan.1988.Class,gender,and the relationsof distribution.Signs:Journalof Womenn Cultureand Society 13 (3): 473-97.

. 1990.Hierarchies,obs, bodies:A theoryof genderedorganizations.Gender&Society4:139-58.Adam,EmmaK. 1999.The effectsof relationship tyle,hoursof paidworkanddivision of childrearinglaboronemotionalandphysiologicalstress nworkingmothers.AmericanSociologicalAssociation

Paper.SociologicalAbstracts047.

8/3/2019 Pamela Herd Care Work

22/25

Herd, Harrington Meyer / CARE WORK 685

Andersen,Kristi. 1999.Thegendergapandexperienceswith the welfare state.PS: PoliticalScience andPolitics 33 (1): 17-19.Arendell,Terry.1996. Contemporary arenting: Challengesand issues. ThousandOaks,CA: Sage.Bird,Chloe E. 1999.Gender,household abor,andpsychologicaldistress:Theimpactof theamountanddivisionof housework.Journalof Health and Social Behavior 40 (1): 32-45.Boles, J. K. 1991. Advancing the women's agenda within local legislatures. In Gender and

policymaking:Studiesof women noffice,editedby L. Dodson.New Brunswick,NJ:Center or theAmericanWomen and Politics.Bums, Nancy, Kay LehmanSchlozman,andSidney Verba.2001. Theprivate rootsof public action:Gender,equality,andpolitical participation.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.Brehm, John,andWendyRahn. 1997. Individual-levelevidence for the causes andconsequencesofsocial capital.AmericanJournalof Political Science 41 (3): 999-1023.Brody,Elaine. 1990. Women n the middle: Theirparentscareyears. New York:Springer.Cancian,Francesca,and Stacey Oliker. 2000. Caringand gender.ThousandOaks, CA: Pine ForgePress.Center for AmericanWomenandPolitics. 2000. Election2000: Summaryof results or women. NewBrunswick,NJ:RutgersUniversityEagletonInstituteof Politics.Clemens,Elisabeth.1999.Organizational epertoires nd nstitutional hange:Women'sgroupsandthetransformation f Americanpolitics, 1890-1920. In Civic engagementin Americandemocracy,editedby T. Skocpoland M. Fiorina.Washington,DC: BrookingsInstitution.Coats, Dan,andRickSantorum.1998.Civil society andthe humblerole of government. nCommunityworks,editedby E. J. Dionne.Washington,DC:BrookingsInstitution.Couch,Laurie,JeffreyAdams,and Warren ones. 1996. The assessmentof trustorientation. ournalofPersonalityAssessment67 (2): 305-23.Couch,Laurie,andWarren ones. 1997.Measuringevels of trust.JournalofResearch nPersonality31(3): 319-36.Crawford,Susan, andPeggy Levitt. 1999. In Civicengagement n Americandemocracy,editedby T.SkocpolandM. Fiorina.New York:RussellSage.Daly, Mary.2000. Thegenderdivisionof welfare.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.Delphy, Christine. 1976. The main enemy:A materialistanalysis of women'soppression.London:Women'sResearch and Resources Centre.Dodson, Debra. 1997. Changeandcontinuity n the relationshipbetweenprivateresponsibilitiesand

publicoffice holding:Themorethings change,the morethey staythe same.PolicyStudies 25 (4):569-84.Edin, Katherine, ndLauraLein. 1997.Work,welfareandsinglemother's urvival trategies.American

Sociological Review 62 (2): 253-66.Elshtain,Jean Bethke. 1982a. The amily inpolitical thought.Amherst:Universityof MassachusettsPress.. 1982b.Feminism,family,andcommunity.Dissent 29 (4): 442-49.. 1990. Powertripsand other ourneys.Madison:Universityof WisconsinPress.. 1996. Democracyat century'send. Social Service Review 70 (4): 507-15..1998. Not a cure all: Civil society createscitizens, it does not solve problems.In Communityworks,editedby E. J. Dionne.Washington,DC:BrookingsInstitution.. 1999. A call to civil society.Society36 (5): 11-19.

Esping-Andersen,G. 1999. Socialfoundationsof postindustrialeconomies.Oxford,UK: OxfordUni-versityPress.

Fraser,Nancy.1994.Afterthefamilywage:Genderequityandthewelfarestate.PoliticalTheory22 (4):591-618..2000. Afterthefamily wage:A postindustrial houghtexperiment. nGenderandcitizenship ntransition,editedby BarbaraHobson. New York:Routledge.Freeman,RichardB. 1996. Workingor nothing:Thesupplyof volunteer abor.No. 5435. Cambridge,MA: National Bureauof Economic Research.

8/3/2019 Pamela Herd Care Work

23/25

686 GENDER & SOCIETY / October 2002

Galston,William. 1996. The reinstitutionalization f marriage:Political theoryandpublic policy. InPromises okeep:Declineandrenewalofmarriage nAmerica,editedbyD. Popenoe,J. B. Elshtain,and D. Blankenhorn.Lantham,MD:RowmanandLittlefield.Galston,William,and William Bennett. 1999.National Commissionon Civic Renewal:Updateto "Anationof spectator's report."College Park:Universityof Maryland.Galston,William,andPeterLevine. 1998.America'scivic condition:A glanceattheevidence.InCom-munityworks,editedby E. J. Dionne.Washington,DC:BrookingsInstitution.Gordon,Linda. 1994. Pitied butnotentitled:Singlemothersandthehistoryof welfare,1890-1935.NewYork:Free Press.

Harkness,Susan,andJaneWaldfogel.1999. Thefamilygapinpay:Evidencefrom sevenindustrializedcountries.LuxembourgIncome Study workingpaperno. 219, Syracuse University,New York.Retrieved romhttp://lisweb.ceps.lu/publications/liswps/219.pdf.HarringtonMeyer,Madonna,ed. 2000. Care work:Gender, abor,and the welfarestate. New York:

Routledge.Herda-Rapp,Anne. 2000. The impactof social activism on genderidentityand care work: Women'sactivism nthe toxic waste movement.InCarework:Gender, abor,andthewelfarestate,editedbyMadonnaHarringtonMeyer.New York:Routledge.Hernes,HelgaMaria. 1987. Welfare tates and womenpower.London:NorwegianUniversityPress.Himmelfarb,Gertrude.1998. Second thoughtson civil society? In Communityworks,editedby E. J.Dionne.Washington,DC:BrookingsInstitution.Hobson,Barbara.1990.No exit, no voice. Acta Sociologica 33 (3): 235-50..2000. Genderandcitizenship n transition.New York:Routledge.Hochschild,Arlie. 1997. Thetime bind.New York:MetropolitanBooks.Hochschild, Arlie, with AnnieMachung.1989. The second shift.New York:Basic Books.Hofrichter,R. 1993. Toxic truggles:Thetheoryandpractice of environmentaltruggles.Philadelphia:New Society.Holden, Karen,and PamelaSmock. 1991.The economic costs of maritaldissolution:Whydo womenbear a disproportionateost? AnnualReviewof Sociology 17:51-78.Holmes, Eva. 1995. Educational ntervention or young children who have experienced fragmentedcare.In Theemotionalneedsofchildrenandtheirfamilies,editedbyJ.Trowell.London:Routledge.Hooyman,Nancy,and JudithGonyea.1995. Feministperspectivesonfamily care: Policiesfor gender

justice. ThousandOaks,CA: Sage.Hoyert,DonnaL., andMarshaM. Seltzer. 1992.Factorsrelating o well beingand ife activitiesof fam-

ily caregivers.FamilyRelations41 (1): 74-81.Knijn,Trudie,andMoniqueKremer.1997. Gender andcaringdimensionsof welfarestates:Toward

inclusivecitizenship.Social Politics4 (3): 328-61.Korpi,Walter.2000. Facesof inequality:Gender,class andpatternsof inequalities n different ypesofwelfare states.Luxembourg ncomeStudy workingpaperno. 224, Maxwell School of CitizenshipandPublicAffairs,Syracuse,NY. Retrieved romhttp:/lisweb.ceps.lu/publications/liswps/224.pdf.Krauss,Celene. 1993. Blue collar women and toxic waste protests.In Toxicstruggles, editedby R.Hofrichter.Philadelphia:New Society.Laslett,Barbara, ndJohannaBrenner.1989. Genderand social reproduction:Historicalperspectives.AnnualReviewof Sociology 15:381-404.Leete-Guy,Laura,andJuliet Schor. 1993.Assessingthetime-squeezehypothesis:Hoursworked n theUnitedStates, 1969-1989. IndustrialRelations 33 (1): 24-43.Leira,Arnlaug.1992. Thewelfarestateandworkingmothers:TheScandinavian xperience.New York:

CambridgeUniversityPress.Lewis, Jane. 1992. Genderand thedevelopmentof welfare stateregimes.Journalof EuropeanSocialPolicy2:159-73.Lister,Ruth. 1997.Citizenship:Feministperspectives.WashingtonSquare:New YorkUniversityPress.. 2000. Dilemmas inengenderingcitizenship.InGenderandcitizenship ntransition,editedbyBarbaraHobson. New York:Routledge.

8/3/2019 Pamela Herd Care Work

24/25

Herd, Harrington Meyer / CARE WORK 687

Magnus,Edie. 2000. Abandonment ase drawsmixed reaction.NBCEveningNews withTomBrokaw,11January.Marshall,T. H. 1950. Citizenshipand social class. Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.Mead,Lawrence. 1986. Beyondentitlement.New York:FreePress.Mettler,Suzanne. 1999.Promoting hegeneralwelfare:Reflections on theconsequencesof socialpol-

icy for civic life. Paperpresentedat ImprovingCivic Life: Symposiumon Citizenshipand CivicEngagement,22-23 October,Syracuse,NY.Mink,Gwendolyn.1995.Thewages of motherhood: nequality n thewelfarestate.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress..1998. Welfare's nd. Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress.

Molyneux,Maxine. 1979. Beyondthe domesticlabor debate.New LeftReview 116:3-28.NationalAllianceforCaregiving.1997.Familycaregiving nthe U.S.:Findingsfroma nationalsurvey,final report.Washington,DC: NationalAlliance forCaregivingand AARP. Retrieved romhttp://www.caregiving.org/content/repsprods.asp.Oakley,Ann. 1974. Thesociology of housework.New York:Pantheon.O'Connor,JuliaS., AnnSholaOrloff,andSheilaShaver.1999.States, markets,amilies: Gender,iber-alism,and socialpolicy inAustralia,Canada,GreatBritainand theUnitedStates.Cambridge,UK:CambridgeUniversityPress.Oliker,Stacey.2000. Examiningcare at welfare's end. In Care work:Gender, abor and the welfarestate,editedby MadonnaHarringtonMeyer.New York:Routledge.Orloff,Ann Shola. 1993.Genderandthe socialrightsof citizenship:Thecomparative nalysisof genderrelationsand welfare states.AmericanSociological Review58 (3): 303-28.Pardo,Mary.1998. MexicanAmericanwomen:Grassroots ommunityactivists.InFamilies n theU.S.:Kinshipand domesticpolitics, editedby K. Hansenand A. L. Garvey.Philadelphia:TempleUniver-sity Press.Peters,RichardG.,VincentCovello,andDavidMcCallum.1997. The determinants f trustandcredibil-ity in environmental isk communication.RiskAnalysis 17 (1): 43-54.Putnam,Robert.1993.Makingdemocracywork:Civictraditions n modern taly.Princeton,NJ:Prince-ton UniversityPress..1995. Bowlingalone:America'sdecliningsocialcapital.JournalofDemocracy6 (1):65-78.1996. The strangedisappearance f civic America.AmericanProspect7 (24). Retrieved romhttp://www.prospect.org/archives/24/24putn.html.. 2000. Bowlingalone: Thecollapse and revivalof Americancommunity.New York:Simon &Schuster.

Rubin,Lillian. 1994. Families on the ault line. New York:HarperCollins.Sainsbury,Diane. 1994. Genderingwelfarestates. London:Sage..1999. Gender,policy regimes and politics. In Genderand welfarestate regimes,edited byDiane Sainsbury.Oxford,UK: OxfordUniversityPress.Schambra,William. 1998.All community s local: Thekey to America'scivic renewal.In Communityworks,editedby E. J. Dionne. Washington,DC:BrookingsInstitution.Scheiwe, Kirsten.1994. Germanpension insurance,genderedtimes and stratification. n Genderingwelfarestates, editedby Diane Sainsbury.London:Sage.Secombe,Wally.1974.The housewife and her labourundercapitalism.NewLeftReview 83 (January/

February): -24.Siaroff, Alan. 2000. Women'srepresentationn legislaturesand cabinets in industrialdemocracies.InternationalPoliticalScienceReview 21 (2): 197-215.Siim, B. 1993.Thegenderedcomponent n Scandanavianwelfare states. In Women nd social policiesin Europe,editedby Jane Lewis. Aldershot,UK: EdwardEldger.Skocpol,Theda. 1992. Protectingsoldiers and mothers.Cambridge,MA: Belknap..1996. Unravellingfrom above. AmericanProspect7 (25). Retrievedfrom http://www.pros-pect.org/archives/25/25-ent2.html.

8/3/2019 Pamela Herd Care Work

25/25

688 GENDER & SOCIETY / October 2002

. 1998.Don'tblamebig government:America'svoluntary roups hrive nanationalnetwork. nCommunityworks,editedby D. J. Dionne.Washington,DC:BrookingsInstitution.

. 1999. Advocateswithoutmembers:The recent ransformationf Americancivic life. In Civicengagement n Americandemocracy,editedby ThedaSkocpol and Morris Fiorina.Washington,DC:BrookingsInstitution.Skocpol, Theda,and Morris Fiorina. 1999. Makingsense of the civic engagementdebate. In Civic

engagement n Americandemocracy,editedby ThedaSkocpol andMorris Fiorina.Washington,DC:BrookingsInstitution.Skocpol,Theda,MarshallGanz,andZiad Munson.2000. A nationof organizers:The institutionalori-

ginsofcivic volunteerismn theUnitedStates.AmericanPoliticalScienceReview94 (3):527-46.Smeeding,Timothy,CarrollEstes, and Lou Glasse. 1999. Social securityreform and older women:

Improvinghesystem.IncomeSecurityPolicySeriespaperno.22, MaxwellSchool,Center orPol-icy Research,Syracuse,NY.

Thomas,Sue. 1994. How women egislate.New York:OxfordUniversityPress.Verba,Sidney,KayLehmanSchlozman,andHenryBrady.1995.Voiceandinequality.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.Voydanoff,Patricia,and BrendaDonnelly. 1999. The intersectionof time in activitiesandperceivedunfairness n relationto psychologicaldistress andmaritalquality.Journalof Marriageand the

Family61 (August):739-51.Wolfe,Alan. 1989. Whosekeeper?Social science and moralobligations. Berkeley:Universityof Cali-fornia Press.. 1998.Is civil societyobsolete?InCommunityworks,editedby E. J. Dionne.Washington,DC:

BrookingsInstitution.Zimmerman,MaryK. 1993.Caregivingn the welfare state:Mothers' nformalhealthcare work nFin-land.Sociology of Health Care 10:193-211.

PamelaHerdis a RobertWoodJohnsonScholarin healthpolicy at the Universityof Michigan,Ann Arbor Her interestsare in gender,aging, welfarestates,and health.MadonnaHarringtonMeyeris an associateprofessorof sociology at SyracuseUniversity,asenior researchassociatein theCenterforPolicyResearch,and the directorofSyracuseUniver-sity's GerontologyCenterShe is the editorof CareWork:Gender,Labor,and the WelfareState(Routledge).